Web Services Description

27 Jan 2005


See also: IRC log


Rebecca Bergersen, IONA Technologies
David Booth, W3C
Allen Brookes, Rogue Wave Software
Helen Chen, Agfa-Gevaert N. V.
Roberto Chinnici, Sun Microsystems
Ugo Corda, SeeBeyond
Glen Daniels, Sonic Software
Paul Downey, British Telecommunications
Youenn Fablet, Canon
Hugo Haas, W3C
Jacek Kopecky, DERI
Amelia Lewis, TIBCO
Kevin Canyang Liu, SAP
Jonathan Marsh, Chair/Microsoft
Jean-Jacques Moreau, Canon
Mark Nottingham, BEA Systems
Bijan Parsia, University of Maryland MIND Lab
Tony Rogers, Computer Associates
Arthur Ryman, IBM
Sanjiva Weerawarana, IBM
Umit Yalcinalp, SAP
Prasad Yendluri, webMethods, Inc.
Asir S Vedamuthu



no, I didn't get any errors

I sent my e-mails and they did not show up in the archive

yes, I sent 5 e-mails this morning

<scribe> Scribe: Asir S Vedamuthu

<scribe> ScribeNick: asir

<scribe> Meeting: WSDL WG Teleconference

<scribe> Chair: Jonathan Marsh

Approval of minutes

TonyR: reminds about "the first two meetings for 2005 are listed as 2004-01-06 and 2004-01-13"

Minutes approved


Review of Action items

[review postponed]


Good Standing discussion

<dbooth> Draft minutes from the F2F:

<dbooth> http://www.w3.org/2005/01/19-ws-desc-minutes.html

<dbooth> http://www.w3.org/2005/01/20-ws-desc-minutes.html

<dbooth> http://www.w3.org/2005/01/21-ws-desc-minutes.html

<dbooth> http://www.w3.org/2005/01/21-ws-desc-minutes.html

[reads thru the good standing list]

In danger: IONA, Agfa-Gevaert, SeeBeyond, DERI, Telecordia, HP, Education.au Ltd.*, CA* (* telcon attendance will restore Good Standing)

Jacekk: changed affiliation

Marsh: Jacekk is in good standing

Next F2F discussion, Mar 3,4 Boston


hugo: requests members to register for the F2F

Last Call Review of WS-Chor LC


<Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to send a note to WS-Chor that we have no comments.

Marsh: Kevin reported that there isn't anything to report.. will report that we don't have any comments

Media Type - Issue 272 Architectural issues

[checking on progress]

[skipping because both the editors are absent]

Moving into the import and include cluster

<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0058.html

<Marsh> Asir: Sent proposal for 75s.

<Marsh> ... same as 91.

<Marsh> ... about which components are visible within the WSDL.

<Marsh> ... two sections talk about this 3.1, 3.2.

<Marsh> ... 3.1 is about importing schema, 3.2 is about embedding schema in <wsdl:types>

<Marsh> ... I read all the rules about visibility, and they seem correct, but the prose is complicated.

<Marsh> ... Schema WG proposed rewording that I copied into the mail.

<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0058.html

<Marsh> Section 3.1.1 [1] - "Note that only components defined in the schema itself

<Marsh> and components included by it via xs:include are available to WSDL.

<Marsh> Specifically, components that the schema imports via xs:import are NOT

<Marsh> available to WSDL."

<Marsh> After: Section 3.1.1 - "Note that only components in the imported namespace are

<Marsh> available for reference in the WSDL document."


<Marsh> Sanjiva: the imported namespace is... what?

<Marsh> ... finds previous text clearer.

<Marsh> DBooth: Non-normative note giving an example help?

<Arthur> +q

sanjiva: prefers the old wording

arthur: prefers test cases

Marsh: what is wrong with the new wording?

Sanjiva: either works for me with an example

<sanjiva> +1 to what Arthur just said .. non xsd experts like me like schema stuff spelt out :-)

arthur: old wording is clearer to non-schema experts; new wording is clearer to schema experts

<alewis> ack

alewis: are we getting into changing what exists today

[discussion about the clarity of xml schema include and import mechanisms]

Marsh: shall we accept the proposed re-wording, add examples, and make it clear?

<dbooth> +1 to retaining that last negative sentence

asir: describes why the last sentence is confusing, particularly the usage of xs:import within the xs:import section

<TonyR> Perhaps we should say "components ONLY imported via a NESTED xs:import are not visible"

then you have to define what NESTED means

<TonyR> True

Marsh: lets go back to Jeffrey's suggestion to add a table that describes the visibility

<sanjiva> +1 for putting jeffrey's proposed table

<dbooth> +1

<TonyR> +1

mnot: this sounds more like primer text, the table, rather than REC text

Marsh: describing the visibility of schema components is normative
... proposal to accept the wording and add a table that describes the visibility of schema components


Sanjiva: sounds good

<Marsh> Table rows/columns: import, include | directly in WSDL, in schema

asir: I would like to see the table

Marsh: proposal to accept the wording and add the table described above


[section 3.1.2]

Resolution: rewording for section 3.1.2 is accepted

<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0059.html

<Marsh> Asir: Proposal for 75t and 92...

<Marsh> ... In part 1 wsdl:include is described as being non-transitive, and that it is modelled after schema include.

<Marsh> ... There is a difference in transitive closure - wsdl isn't, schema is.

<Marsh> ... Schema inclusions are effectively transitive. Why is WSDL non-transitive?

<Marsh> ... Proposed resolution: Replace, "Components in directly included descriptions become part of the

<Marsh> component model of the including description. Directly included means that

<Marsh> component inclusion is not transitive; components included by one of the

<Marsh> included documents are not available to the original including document

<Marsh> unless the are included directly by that document." [1]

<Marsh> With, "Components in the transitive closure of the included WSDL documents

<Marsh> become part of the Description (LC43) component of the including WSDL

<Marsh> document."

Marsh: did we make this intentionally?

Sanjiva: recalls intentional but don't recall the reason why

<Roberto> same here

Arthur: I think this is an error
... part 1 has a proposal to put together a master document and this one is a deviation from that

Marsh: should I follow up with Gudge?

<scribe> ACTION: Marsh to follow up with Gudge on wsdl:include transitive issue

<scribe> [postponed to next week]

<Marsh> Sanjiva: Feb 2004 made the change to non-transitive.

<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0063.html

Issue LC52a: Last call review comments (a)

<Marsh> Asir: Unclear whether included components are in the same namespace.

<Marsh> ... The text is inconsistent.


<Marsh> Proposal: Remove text from Component description in 2.1.1 and 2.1.3, leaving import and include mentioned only in the XML mapping.

Sanjiva: agrees about the target namespace, questions the term 'Extensibility Components'
... agrees with the change

Marsh: changing 'Extensibility' is editorial

[discussion about an e-mail from Arthur - Proposal for Simplification of the Component Model]


Marsh: push LC52a to the stack and make it dependent on Arthur's issue, yet to be numbered

arthur: describes about several {in-scope-*} for components

Marsh: proposal to accept the resolution and ..

<Marsh> ... realize that there are Extension issues which we'll deal with in Arthur's mail.

<sanjiva> +1

<Roberto> +1 to realize that


<Marsh> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html?view=wg#LC60

Issue LC60: Can multiple inline schemas have same targetNS?


Marsh: recalling what Basic Profile says about that
... should we make it clear in our spec?

arthur: there is a related issue, about accessing a schema inlined in a WSDL document

asir: recollects what happened 2 years ago and the WSDL wg decided not to allow acces to inline schemas

umit: what is the issue?

alewis: if you have inlined schema, there is no defined method to access it

<uyalcina> I agree with Asir that we are in unchartered territory. There is no composition model from schema about including multiple inlined schemas into a single document. It is undefined with respec to schemaLocation

[I have some offline text, that I will paste it later]

<pauld> BP 1.0a in R2004 disallowed schema import from another document whose root document element wasn't 'schema'.

umit: agrees that there is no composition model and should provide a helpful hint in the primer

<kliu> just want to point out that we have resolve an issue before about "include" inlined schema

<Arthur> +1

<sanjiva> +1 to Jack too .. leave it alone :)

<kliu> in case of "include", schemalocation is an REQUIRED attribute

jacek: don't have to say anything about schemaLocation
... yes, duplicates will be a problem

asir: confused about why we are considering schemaLocation when the issue is about embedded schema

<JacekK> +1 to arthur

Sanjiva: an emedded schema may use schema location

Marsh: appears like we don't want to expand on schemaLocation, we do want to allow multiple schema with the same target namespace, and say something about duplicate components

<uyalcina> +1 to Asir

<JacekK> Kevin, if somebody would want to inline two schemas with the same NS and include between them, they can just fold them in one xs:schema element

<sanjiva> +1 for putting a note saying its ok

Marsh: don't want to change any behaviour on two inline schemas with the same namespace, should we add a note to say what happens to duplicate components

dbooth: we have a question and we should clarify

<Marsh> Proposal: Add clarification that two inlined schemas from the same targetNS are OK...

<kliu> Jacek, yes, in most cases you are right. but some times schemas are generated by tools from different sources and put into wsdl

<Marsh> ... Make duplicate definitions an error.


Sanjiva: shall we stay away from inline schema composition

Marsh: schema doesn't say anything about inline schema composition

<JacekK> Kevin, the process of putting them into WSDL should be simple enough even with manipulating that root element

Marsh: consistent with our past schema decisions on schemaLocation, etc. and leave it up to your schema processor

<Marsh> Alternative proposal: Add clarification that two inlined schemas from the same targetNS are OK.

<uyalcina> +1 to Marsh.

<sanjiva> +1

<JacekK> +1

<uyalcina> WE don't need to solve schema issues further in WSDL.

dbooth: I don't think it is ok to not say anything about two embedded schema with duplicate components

<uyalcina> Our approach has been to leave schema processing issues to schema processor and we should do the same

Marsh: ok to have two inline schemas with the same targetnamespace and wsdl lets the schema processor to figure out

<Marsh> Final proposal: Add clarification that two inlined schemas from the same targetNS are OK. Note that we rely on schema to sort out a coherent set of schema components.

<Marsh> Final proposal: Add clarification that two inlined schemas from the same targetNS are OK. Note that we rely on schema processor to sort out a coherent set of schema components.

<sanjiva> +1

<kliu> +1


dbooth: in the primer, we have a placeholder for schemaLocation, am looking for a volunteer to help us

<Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to put primer on agenda next wek.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Marsh to follow up with Gudge on wsdl:include
... transitive issue
[NEW] ACTION: Marsh to put primer on agenda next wek.
[NEW] ACTION: Marsh to send a note to WS-Chor that we have no
... comments.
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.109 (CVS log)
$Date: 2005/01/27 17:35:16 $