- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:27:30 -0800
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
[New issues, new members.]
0. Dial in information (members only) [.1]:
See the public WG page [.2] for pointers to current documents and other
information, and the private page [.3] for administrative matters.
If you have additions to the agenda, please email them to the WG list
before the start of the telcon.
[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Jan/0021.html
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/
[.3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/admin
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Agenda
1a. Welcome new members:
- Rebecca Bergersen, IONA
- Tony Rogers, CA
b. Assign scribe. Lucky minute taker for this week is one of:
Amy Lewis, Jeff Mischkinsky, David Orchard, Asir Vedamuthu,
Bijan Parsia, Sanjiva Weerawarana, Hugo Haas, Anish Karmarkar,
Jacek Kopecky, Prasad Yendluri, David Booth
--------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Approval of minutes:
- Jan 6 [.1]
[.1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/att-0021/2005010
6-wsdl.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 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.
? 2004-09-30: Arthur to add Z notation to Part 1.
? 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: DBooth and Roberto to describe
option 2 (remove definition of processor
conformance, write up clear guidelines
to developers) (LC5f)
? 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.
? 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: DBooth to propose text to clarify that
a service must implement everything in
its description.
? 2004-11-18: Mini-task force to propose one or two
proposals for the group for LC5f.
? 2004-12-02: DBooth to draft note clarifying that
(a) optional extension can change the
semantics; and (b) that if semantics are
going to change at runtime, it should be
indicated in the WSDL
? 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
? 2004-12-03: Hugo or JMarsh to write up schema group remarks
? 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 Henry asking for lots
of examples on Notation solution.
? 2005-01-06: Umit? to respond to Larry, "not dynamic,
other solutions equally bad, not
recommendation track, if problems
happy to consider those"
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/actions.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Administrivia
a. Jan 19-21 Melbourne, Australia hosted by BEA [.1]
Wed 19th Break & setup 3PM (time calculator [.2].
Joint meeting 3:15-5(:30?)PM.
Thurs, Friday 9-5PM [.3, .4].
b. Mar 3,4 Boston [.5]
c. Review of WS-Chor LC [.6]
[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Nov/0014.html
[.2]
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=1&day=19&year
=2005&hour=15&min=0&sec=0&p1=152
[.3]
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=1&day=20&year
=2005&hour=9&min=0&sec=0&p1=152
[.4]
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=1&day=21&year
=2005&hour=9&min=0&sec=0&p1=152
[.4] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TP2005/
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Dec/0029.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Media Type Description issues [.1] (30 min max.) a. Issue 272
Architectural issues [.2]
- Awaiting more examples from Henry.
b. Issue 271 Why is contentType attribute required? [.3] c. Issue 261
Allow expecteMediaType to contain '*' [.4]
- proposed resolution [.5]
d. Issue 262 Value of contentType and the range specified by
expectedMediaType [.6]
- proposed resolution [.7]
e. Issue 263 Lexical and value space of the attributes and XML
schema decl [.8]
- proposed resolution [.9]
f. Issue 258 Namespace name too long and had dates [.10]
- proposed resolution [.11]
g. Issue 270 Normalization for content-type strings [.12] h. Issue 273
Whitespace significance [.13] i. Issue 275 Error in example 1 [.14]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#detailList
[.2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-media-types/2004Nov/0011.h
tml
[.3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x271
[.4] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x261
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0013.html
[.6] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x262
[.7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0014.html
[.8] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x263
[.9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0015.html
[.10] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x258
[.11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0007.html
[.12] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x270
[.13] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x273
[.14] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x275
------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Last Call Issues [.1]. Comments list [.2]
- LC101: message-level binding (Kevin) [.3]
- wsdlLocation version independence (Jonathan) [.4]
- @operationStyle (Umit) [.5]
- David's slide 12 ? [.6]
- Meaning of WSDL doc ? [.7]
- LC99: Message Reference Component is Underspecified [.8]
- LC100: The WSDL 2.0 XSD for Root Element is Too Loose [.9]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Dec/0021.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Dec/0027.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Dec/0038.html
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Dec/0022.html
[.7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Dec/0024.html
[.8] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC99
[.9] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC100
------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Issue LC5f: QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance
issues (f) [.1]
- Roberto's proposal [.2]
- No final resolution from FTF, AIs to DBooth/Roberto and DaveO
to write up competing proposals
- Mini-TF to work on a single proposal.
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5f
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Oct/0027.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Issue LC54: WSDL Last Call issue
- Awaiting DaveO's further action to cast @compatibleWith as an
extension
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC54
------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Issue LC50: Message Exchange Patterns -- p2c and/or p2e [.1]
- Proposed resolution [.2]
- Definition of node: [.3, .4]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC50
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0088.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0070.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0072.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Single interface per service issues:
- Issue LC73: WSDL Last Call issue [.1]
- Issue LC75n: WSDL 2.0 Last Call Comments [.2]
- Issue LC89k: Comments [.3]
- Roberto's proposal [.4]
Majority in favor of reopening?
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC73
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC75n
[.3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC89k
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0094.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Composition Edge Case issues
- Issue LC20: Feature Composition Edge Cases [.1]
- Issue LC27: Property Composition Edge Cases [.2]
- Need Glen's input
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC20
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC27
------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Issue LC24: "ad:mustUnderstand" - ?? [.1]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC24
------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Issue LC53: Optional predefined features in Part 2 [.1]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC53
------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Issue LC61f: comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (f) [.1]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC61f
------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Issue LC76d: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments (Part 2) (d) [.1]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC76d
------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Issue LC28: HTTP Transfer Coding and 1.0 [.1]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC28
------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Issue LC47: Issue: describing the HTTP error text for
faults [.1]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC47
------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Issue LC52a: Last call review comments (a) [.1]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC52a
------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Issue LC60: Can multiple inline schemas have same targetNS? [.1]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC60
------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Issue LC74: Idle question [.1]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC74
------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Issue LC75s: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments (s) [.1]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC75s
------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Issue LC75t: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments (t) [.1]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC75t
------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Issue LC75w: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments (w) [.1]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC75w
------------------------------------------------------------------
24. Other LC issues as time allows [.1]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hold for future meetings
------------------------------------------------------------------
25. Issue LC74e: I18N Comments, WSDL 2.0 Part I (partial) (e) [.1]
- Roberto's Proposal [.2], I18N response [.3]
- Related issues:
- Issue 75q (drop XML 1.1 support) [.4]
- Issue 85b (drop abstract data types) [.5]
- Issue 85c (drop XML 1.1 support) [.6]
- Postpone till FTF
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC74e
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0044.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0051.html
[.4] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75q
[.5] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC85b
[.6] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC85c
------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Task Force Status.
a. QA & Testing
- Suggested QA plan [.1]
- More details from Arthur [.2]
- Interop bake-off
b. Schema versioning
- Waiting to hear back from Schema on my draft "charter."
- Henry's validate-twice write-up [.3]
[.1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/att-0029/QA_Oper
ational_Checklist.htm
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0037.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0019.html
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2005 20:28:04 UTC