Web Services Description WG

 

<Marsh> oops

<Marsh> Looks like it's missing from the calendar: http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20050203

<Marsh> How do I change the topic to include the passcode?

<Arthur> The zakim meeting code -- today only -- is 83261.

<Marsh> http://www.w3.org/2001/01/cgi-irc

<dbooth> Scribe: Amy

<dbooth> ScribeNick: alewis

Approval of Minutes

Marsh: minutes 27 Jan 2005 teleconference approved

<asir> LC 103 is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005Jan/0008.html

<asir> title is - "{message label} property of Binding Message Reference Component Should be REQUIRED"

<Marsh> ACTION: Marsh make Jan 0008 issue LC103 and close it.

email absurdities

Marsh and Asir note that some emails appear in the archive, but have not been received by some members.

<scribe> ACTION: members who have recently raised issues should check that these were reflected in the issues list.

action items

No change from agenda.

Good standing

Marsh: emails have gone to some participants seeking clarification.
... no organizations not in good standing yet, probably will be by next week.

upcoming face to face/tech plenary

Marsh: encourage members to register; hotel reg deadline tomorrow.

questions about joint meetings. none planned. Marsh notes that some are certainly possible.

Primer tasks outstanding

<dbooth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0004.html

Marsh: hoping for last call (again) soon, probably within a month after face to face.
... would be good if the primer could go LC at the same time.

Kevin: encouraging participation; editors have lots, so would greatly appreciate input from members on listed issues.

<dbooth> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC94

<dbooth> 1. Section 2.5.1

<dbooth> Clarification needed: Part 3 sec 2.8.1 and 2.8.2: soap fault codes

<dbooth> See

<dbooth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2004Dec/0003.html

Clarification of soap fault code, issue LC94, added to agenda.

<dbooth> Group needs to address this as LC94

<dbooth> 2. Section 7.2 Features and Properties:

<dbooth> [Pending resolution of the formal objection to F&P]

<dbooth> Incorporate material from

<dbooth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Oct/0144.html

<dbooth> and make sure examples are correct.

<dbooth> 3. Section 7.3 Import mechanism and authoring style:

<dbooth> Add material discussing how WSDL documents should be factored to allow

<dbooth> significant components to be reused.

<dbooth> 4. Section 7.4 Multiple Logical WSDL Documents Describing the Same

<dbooth> Service:

<dbooth> [Pending the resolution of the proposal to allow multiple interfaces per

<dbooth> service]

<dbooth> Add material acknowledging that multiple logical WSDL documents might

<dbooth> try to describe the same service. Explain why some might do this

<dbooth> intentionally, why it might cause problems for some systems, and explain

<dbooth> that this is outside scope of the WSDL language. See thread starting at

<dbooth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Dec/0045.html

<dbooth> JMarsh: Mark it as "at risk"

<dbooth> [[

<dbooth> 5. Section 7.5 Versioning and Service Equivalency:

<dbooth> Add material.

<dbooth> See also

<dbooth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Dec/0047.html

<dbooth> Per decision 2004-03-04 to add the results of the Versioning Task Force

<dbooth> also.

<dbooth> ]]

<inserted> /lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0004.html/PaulD volunteers

<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0004.html

<dbooth> [[

<dbooth> 6. Section 7.6 MTOM Support:

<dbooth> Add material to show how Features and Properties can be used to indicate

<dbooth> the use of MTOM. See example from GlenD:

<dbooth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0076.html

<dbooth> Also add material to show how to do it without using F&P?

<dbooth> ]]

discussion, Marsh, Hugo, others as to whether it is possible to define MTOM without F&P, as it is defined as a feature by XMLP WG

<dbooth> [[

<dbooth> 7. Section 7.7 Security Considerations:

<dbooth> Write this section or delete it.

<dbooth> ]]

<dbooth> JMarsh: Mark at risk

<pauld> william on WSDL security: http://devresource.hp.com/blogs/vambenepe/2005/01/28/1106954874000.html

<dbooth> [[

<dbooth> 8. Section 7.8 Operation Style and RPC:

<dbooth> Write this section, with an example.

<dbooth> ]]

umit suggested. not on teleconference; call for volunteers

Marsh: mark as at risk.

<dbooth> [[

<dbooth> 9. Section 7.11 Service References:

<dbooth> Add explanation and example. Use

<dbooth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Oct/0345.html as a

<dbooth> starting point. Also example(s) from Roberto per the resolution at the

<dbooth> end of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0061.html

<dbooth> ]]

Arthur: volunteers to contribute

<dbooth> [[

<dbooth> 10. Section 7.12 XML Schema Examples:

<dbooth> Review, edit and add Paul Downey's contribution at

<dbooth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0007.html

<dbooth> ]]

Pauld: volunteers to review, given time since initial writeup.

<dbooth> [[

<dbooth> 11. Section 7.13 Multiple In-Line Schemas:

<dbooth> [Pending resolution of the question about multiple inline schemas.]

<dbooth> Add material explaning that this can be done. See

<dbooth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0109.html

<dbooth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0126.html

<dbooth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0130.html

<dbooth> ]]

<dbooth> Discussion last week http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/att-0092/20050127-ws-desc-minutes.html#item07

<dbooth> [[

<dbooth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/att-0092/20050127-ws-desc-minutes.html#item07

<dbooth> ]]

<dbooth> oops, bad paste

<asir> arthur, this is related to http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC60

<Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to find schemaLocation supporting material for Arthur.

<dbooth> scribe: dbooth

Arthur volunteers for this one.

[[

12. Section 7.14 The schemaLocation Attribute:

Add material and example.

See discussion in

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0135.html and

thread called "Schemas in imported WSDL" in

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/thread.html

]]

<scribe> scribe: alewis

Arthur: volunteers for 12/7.14

Marsh: mark 13/7.15 at risk.

<Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to add RDF mapping to agenda, try to recruit Jacek.

Asir: will there be an example for SOAP 1.1?

Kevin: yes, if you supply the content.

<scribe> ACTION: Asir to work with primer eds on SOAP 1.1 example.

Media Type Description Issues

<dbooth> (postponed)

ServiceGroup revival

<dbooth> JMarsh: We've discussed this twice already, so I'm reluctant to reopen. Amy?

<dbooth> Amy: It keeps getting opened.

<sanjiva> -1 on service group

<dbooth> (JMarsh does straw poll on re-opening the ServiceGroup issue)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0088.html

opposed to reopening: 10

in favor: 4

not opened/reopened as issue

LC102, 104, 105, and 106 opened (106 == 21 reopened, approximately)

Motion to approve submitted text.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0026.html

<dbooth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0006.html

first text approved.

second text URL posted above by dbooth.

call for objections: none heard. text approved.

<scribe> ACTION: Part 1 editors to incorporate text from Jan/0026 and Feb/0006.

Import/Include issues

Non-transitive include distinction probably a copy/paste error, based on discussion with Gudge.

Call for objections to Asir's proposal to resolve the issue.

<scribe> Closed: accept Asir's proposal. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0059.html

<scribe> EDTODO: editors to incorporate Asir's revised text on inclusion

LC60 followup: is it an error to have duplicate definitions?

Arthur: recounts discussions with Henry Thomson, of schema WG and XSV.
... three issues. 1) are multiple inline definitions allowed? 2) are multiple conflicting definitions of some type/element permitted? 3) are multiple equivalent definitions?

Arthur and Asir: 1 is resolved, 2 is an error, 3 depends on schema, and most consider it an error (but Henry doesn't)

<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0095.html

<asir> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0095.html

LC94, interpretation of SOAP fault code.

<JacekK> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC94

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2004Dec/0003.html

summary: does the error condition correspond to a fault code, which is associated with a message type? or does the error condition correspond to a message type, which is associated with a fault code?

Marsh: we aren't precluding other faults, we're describing a subset, right?

dbooth: also raised question about the wording in spec of "other faults not precluded", asks what client can expect.

Marsh: application has a fault. the description in the WSDL describes some of the more significant ones, but others are still possible.

Tom: can't have the ambiguity: when the fault occurs, both the fault code and message type are there, they're bound together in the WSDL.

Tom and Marsh: agree that faults are not exhaustively described, although it would be nice to be able to do so.

Marsh: how does this affect the primer? Kevin and dbooth: arose while explaining this; resolution means other question need not be treated.

dbooth: willing to accept clarification.

<asir> +1 to doesn' t matter

resolution: when fault occurs, code and schema are as specified.

dbooth: what about unspecified faults? specification permits them, explicitly. is that really what the client has to expect?

Marsh (and others?): yes.

dbooth: needs further clarification, then.

LC94 closed.

Header support

Marsh: summary: DaveO suggested enhancement to AD feature, mostly attributes. Asir provided proposal for headers described without using F&P. Followup: header support for soap only.
... Asir, how would clarifying WSDL 1.1 headers be different from SOAP headers proposal?

Asir: instead of wsoap:header pointing at an element, point at a wrapper type that includes multiple headers.
... raised issues on mailing list that apply to AD feature.

Marsh: which proposals are still open? first-class, soap-only, daveO's enhancement?

Asir: currently reworking first-class proposal, not completed yet.

Marsh: call for responses to Asir's proposals.

Component Model Changes

LC104: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0060.html

Marsh: have people looked, is it non-contentious, or should it be scheduled for discussion?

Asir: have a question.

Kevin: need time.

Marsh: will place on agenda for next week.

LC105: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0056.html

issue summary: can extension components modify other top-level components?

Arthur: if so, then the definition of equivalence must include the top-level extension elements, can't compare infosets.
... the idea here is that equivalence can be determined at the infoset level, don't have to struggle with equivalence at the component model level.

Marsh: can Arthur update proposal?