See also: IRC log
<dbooth> Scribe: sanjiva
<dbooth> ScribeNick: scribe
Minutes approved with no corrections
Review of Action items [.1]. Editorial actions [.2].
? 2004-04-01: Marsh will get schema tf going.
? 2004-09-02: Bijan to create stylesheet to generate a
table of components and properties.
? 2004-09-16: Editors to move App C to RDF Mapping spec,
except the frag-id which will move
within media-type reg appendix.
? 2004-09-16: Editors to fix paragraph 6-9 of section
2.1.1 moved into 2.1.2
which talks about the syntax.
? 2004-10-14: Editors to add a statement like:
The Style property may constrain both
input and output, however a particular
style may constrain in only one
direction. In Section 2.4.1.1 of Part 1.
(subsumed by LC21 resolution?)
? 2004-11-09: DaveO to work on text for option
3 (redefining conformance in terms
of building the component model)
(LC5f)
? 2004-11-09: DaveO will recast the @compatibleWith
proposal using an extension namespace.
(LC54)
? 2004-11-10: Sanjiva to write the rationale for
rejecting LC75a
? 2004-11-10: Glen will post an e-mail describing
the compromise proposal on formal objections.
? 2004-11-10: Editor remove ambiguity if it exists
? 2004-11-10: Sanjiva will write up this proposal
and email it to the list as a response
to the objection.
? 2004-11-11: Anish to propose additions to the
test suite for the purpose of
interoperability testing.
DONE 2004-11-11: Editors of part 2 and 3 to add text
about WSDLMEP and SOAP mep mapping that
points to section 2.3 of part 3 (LC48b)
? 2004-11-18: Mini-task force to propose one or two
proposals for the group for LC5f.
? 2004-12-03: Glen and Asir to help craft the specfic text
for the editors.
? 2004-12-03: Glen to send example on feature stuff for primer
DONE 2004-12-16: Part 3 Editors to update the HTTP binding with
one of the above versions of text
? 2005-01-06: MTD Editors to add note saying content-type
is not sufficient, information to be
provided via other mechanism, for
example xsi:type"
? 2005-01-06: MTD editors implement proposal 2 for issue
260.
? 2005-01-06: Umit? to respond to Larry, "not dynamic,
other solutions equally bad, not
recommendation track, if problems
happy to consider those"
? 2005-01-13: Editors of media type doc to
implement issue 261 resolution
? 2005-01-13: Editors of media type doc to
implement issue 262 resolution
? 2005-01-13: Editors of media type doc to
implement 262 and 273
? 2005-01-13: Editors of media type doc to
incorporate the text at 2004Dec/0022.html
? 2005-01-13: Editors of media type doc to
resolve 275 editorially
DONE [.6] 2005-01-13: Umit to reply to issuer 270
DONE [.7] 2005-01-13: Umit to respond to Ian Hickson
about issue 271
? 2005-01-19: Part 1 Editors to call out the difference
between WSDL 1.1 and 2.0 in respect to
single interface per service, and
indicate alternatives
? 2005-01-19: Part 1 Editors to rewrite ONMR as Best practice.
DONE 2005-01-19: Arthur and Asir to look for more edge cases
ref LC20 and LC27.
DONE [.4] 2005-01-19: Part 1 Editors to add the intersection
rule for f&p composition.
? 2005-01-20: Asir to think about mU and possibly
propose some clarification text
? 2005-01-20: Arthur to come up with primer text
to show fault reuse and fault code.
RETIRED 2005-02-03: Members who have recently raised issues
should check that these were reflected in
the issues list.
? 2005-02-03: Asir to work with primer eds on SOAP 1.1
example.
? 2005-02-03: Part 1 editors to incorporate text from
Jan/0026 and Feb/0006.
DONE 2005-02-10: DBooth to mail Arthur change to wording on media
type registration, Arthur to incorporate.
DONE 2005-02-10: JMarsh to ask Henry to respond about media type
issues with examples
? 2005-02-17: Asir to review table on how import and include
actually work (added by JJM)
[Dup] 2005-02-17: bijan and JacekK to supply text for primer
section on RDF mapping
DONE [.3] 2005-02-17: Marsh to reclasify LC107 as editorial and add
reference to Asir's amendment
DONE [.5] 2005-02-17: Marsh to send out a poll today, allowing
clarification of options by EOB tomorrow,
poll next week before the call
? 2005-02-17: Umit and Anish to complete editorial work on
media type description before ftf
? 2005-02-17: Jacekk to help Bijan advance the RDF mapping work
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/actions.html
[.3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC107
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2005Feb/0182.html
[.5] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34041/WSD_AppendixE/
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0064.html
[.7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0065.html
F&P composition done
media type document: updated version coming soon
<dbooth> dbooth: Get me your sections ASAP!
<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-media-types/2005Feb/0000.html
I18n issues related to media type stuff
discussion whether adding negotiation stuff into media type description is a good idea .. the basic requirement is description, not negotiation
<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0066.html
"normalized value" means XML normalization not things like case equality .. so the spec needs to make that clear
considered editorial .. Umit will follow up
<Arthur> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0068.html
component model discussion .. talking about arthur's proposal to move properties have [in scope] kind of notion
<asir> +1 to the first part of Arthur's proposal
no objections to adopting arthur's proposal to consistify f&p for interfaces
<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0060.html
<Marsh> RESOUTION: Adopt Arthur's proposal 2005Feb/0068
z notation starts with component model; so very direct mapping of say interface components to the z interface schema. Additional constraints become z variables, e.g., in scope properties and in scope features. Arthur is writing logical formulae for computing these. Question is whether to make these directly in the component model and thereby remove Arthur's fun of wriitng these formulae.
Advantage is that this makes it analogous to how the Infoset namespace stuff works.
Asir: not convinced [in scope] will really help
[lots of explanation of family hierarchies and how things are computed; sure sounded complicated]
<uyalcina> +1 to asir
<kliu> +1 to asir
glen: points out that it may be easier to have a method that computes
roberto: agrees with asir.
umit: agrees with roberto
<Roberto> +1 for fixing the interface component
<uyalcina> +1
<asir> +1 for fixing the interface component
daveO: wonders whether people want to keep the component model closer to the input syntax and have other stuff be addon functions on the component model
objection to dropping proposal to add inscope f&p? nope
proposal from arthur: un-flatten operations and faults in interfaces so that the component model only shows the ops that are immediately declared in the current interface and others have to be found by looking at the super interfaces
no objections to adopting arthur's proposal
RESOLUTION: Close issue 104 by changing the definition of {operations} and {faults} to only include ones directly declared on the respective elements.
<bijan> Where are the results?
<Marsh> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34041/WSD_AppendixE/results
<bijan> Thanks!
<bijan> The Bijan Option Rules!
<asir> thanks Bijan
<bijan> You are quite welcome :)
<Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to appoint an editor to publish Appendix E as a WG Note. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/24-ws-desc-minutes#action01]
<dbooth> Prevailing option: "Publish the material in Appendix E as a WG Note."
LC70 resolution: appendix E to become a note
<asir> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC70
I have to drop off .. can someone else take over please?
<inserted> Scribe: Kevin
<inserted> ScribeNick: kliu
see you sanjiva, I will pick up from here
<sanjiva> thanks Kevin .. bye
discussion on whether we should say something about parallel schema definitions
amy: why not
arthur: does that mean we allow two different schemas define a same Qname?
amy: if there are mulitple type
definition in use, presumably you should have some semantics
attached to help decide which one should be used
... we don't define that, not saying we can't
DaveO: does schema has the same problem that defintions of same thing in different place?
asir: don't know
jmarsh: we have explored that with wsdl1.1 and 20
arthur: each type system has its own element declaration component
jacek: it might be slight inconsistency
<asir> James Clark has a mechanism to mix schema languages - see http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/nrl.html
what happens if one use element, another use owl attribute
we may say something in the spec that if there are mulitple pointers in the message to different schema declarations there might be problems
asir: we can make it simple by ruling out multiple schema languages
jmarsh: is that a desirable way to go?
asir: there should be only one schema pointer in use
jmarsh: there are a few options, postpone to f2f
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to propose we include a note in the spec saying that if someone combines multiple schema languages may be a problem, and we have not solved this problem.