See also: IRC log
Accepted, no changes
DROPPED 2004-11-11: Anish to propose additions to the test suite for
the purpose of interoperability testing,
due 2005-05-12.
Drop AI for Anish
DONE 2005-03-31: Marsh to take on (or recommend closing) Bijan's AI
to produce a component/property table via XSLT,
due 2005-05-28.
Component property table DONE
? 2005-04-21: Pauld to craft, publish Common Schema structures
to WG for review for publication as WG Note,
due 2005-06-28.
DONE 2005-04-22: Amy to provide examples for the advanced section
of the primer. Amy to send them to Kevin and test
materials to Arthur, due 2005-06-09. (LC61c)
Amy provide examples DONE
<Marsh> ACTION: Amy to provide test cases for MEPs not described in Part 2. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
?* 2005-05-12: Glen to add scoping example to primer,
due 2005-06-01.
?* 2005-05-19: Umit to provide #none for Primer, due 2005-06-16.
?* 2005-05-31: Umit to incorporate these three points into new
text - 1) it's about the message, dammit, not the
operation, 2) it's context-dependent, 3) for the
contexts which we define as common, here are the
things to be thinking about (unique GEDs, etc),
due 1005-06-16.
?* 2005-06-01: Glen to formulate concrete async requirement
for CG, due 2005-06-16.
Scoping PENDING
<scribe> ACTION: Glen to formulate concrete async requirement for CG, due EOB today [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
?* 2005-06-09: Hugo to make a registration page for the July FTF,
due ?.
DONE [.3] 2005-06-09: Arthur to submit errors found in Primer,
due 2005-06-16.
DONE [.5] 2005-06-09: DaveO to take another stab about rewriting the
proposal for LC124, due 2005-06-16.
Outstanding editorial work:
DONE [.4] 2005-04-28: Arthur to introduce specialized markup for
components and properties.
DONE 2005-06-01: Soap 1.1 binding editors to make MUST and
SHOULD lower case in the Note on in-only MEPs
DONE 2005-06-09: Arthur to remove service reference from Part 1
(add new extension attributes).
DONE 2005-06-09: Arthur to remove "processor" in Part 1.
DONE 2005-06-09: Roberto to look at LC76a (including Dbooth's
message) and come back if we shouldn't implement
the suggested fixes.
Roberto implemented fix for LC76a, except where he disagreed with DBooth
<Roberto> more precisely, as I implemented the fix for LC76a, I found that DBooth's observation did not directly pertain to LC76a but at best they would affect the extensibility model in part 1
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions [.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/actions.html [.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Jun/0024.html [.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Jun/0022.html [.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jun/0016.html
Discussions whether we can move the f2f from Wednesday noon, to Friday noon, as per WS-Addr request.
Some people have difficulties with Friday
Jonathan to go back to MarkN and say WSDL cannot move dates, and we choose ours first.
GlenD's changes are not required for publication.
DaveO and Kevin would like to have first example extensible.
Umit and jjm disagree, first example should be simple.
DaveO says not schema primer.
Sanjiva: do not have to explain schema.
DaveO: sets bad precedent, if first example shows non-extensible design.
Umit: versioning should not come first. Will be more visible if in its own section.
Tom: keep first example simple
and straigthforward.
... reader may not have much WSDL or even Schema
experience.
DaveO: most people won't go to advanced section.
Sanjiva: not our role, not primer's role to explain how to write best Web service
Arthur: pedagogy, example should be simple and build up, not go directly into versioning or extensibility.
Kevin: keep first example as is.
Marsh: PROPOSAL to add note when first introduce tCheckAvailability type, for purposes of simplification, have omitted xs:any, which is however not good practice; pls see later.
DaveO: should use the most appropriate schema concept.
<Jonathan> chad: Option 1: Status Quo
<Jonathan> chad: Option 2: Add xs:any
<Jonathan> chad: Option 3: Marsh's compromise
<sanjiva> chat, 3
<sanjiva> chad, 3
<Arthur> vote: 1, 3
<Allen> vote: 3
<alewis> vote: 1, 3
<sanjiva> vote: 3, 1
<youenn> vote: 3,1
<RebeccaB> vote: 3,1
<pauld> chad: 2, 3
<Tomj> vote: 1,3
vote 1, 3
<Allen> vote: 3, 1
<Roberto> vote: 2,3
<TonyR> vote: 1, 3, 2
<JacekK> vote: 2, 3
<GlenD> vote: 2, 3
<kliu> vote: 1, 2, 3
<dorchard> vote 2,3
<Jonathan> vote: Umit: 1
<dorchard> vote: 2,3
<Jonathan> Marsh: abstain
Glen: add xs:any and neighbourghing XML comment
Marsh: so this is now the definition of option 2
<Jonathan> chad: Anish: 3, 1
<Jonathan> chad, count
<chad> Question: unknown
<chad> Option 1: Status Quo (6)
<chad> Option 2: Add xs:any (5)
<chad> Option 3: Marsh's compromise (5)
<chad> 16 voters: alewis (1, 3) , Allen (3, 1) , Anish (3, 1) , Arthur (1, 3) , dorchard (2, 3) , GlenD (2, 3) , JacekK (2, 3) , kliu (1, 2, 3) , pauld (2, 3) , RebeccaB (3, 1) , Roberto (2, 3) , sanjiva (3, 1) , Tomj (1, 3) , TonyR (1, 3, 2) , Umit (1) , youenn (3, 1)
<chad> Round 1: Count of first place rankings.
<chad> Round 2: Tie when choosing candidate to eliminate.
<chad> Tie at round 1 between 2, 3.
<chad> Tie broken randomly.
<chad> Eliminating candidate 3.
<chad> Candidate 1 is elected.
<chad> Winner is option 1 - Status Quo
<JacekK> chad, count
<chad> Question: unknown
<chad> Option 1: Status Quo (6)
<chad> Option 2: Add xs:any (5)
<chad> Option 3: Marsh's compromise (5)
<chad> 16 voters: alewis (1, 3) , Allen (3, 1) , Anish (3, 1) , Arthur (1, 3) , dorchard (2, 3) , GlenD (2, 3) , JacekK (2, 3) , kliu (1, 2, 3) , pauld (2, 3) , RebeccaB (3, 1) , Roberto (2, 3) , sanjiva (3, 1) , Tomj (1, 3) , TonyR (1, 3, 2) , Umit (1) , youenn (3, 1)
<chad> Round 1: Count of first place rankings.
<chad> Round 2: Tie when choosing candidate to eliminate.
<chad> Tie at round 1 between 2, 3.
<chad> Tie broken randomly.
<chad> Eliminating candidate 3.
<chad> Candidate 1 is elected.
<chad> Winner is option 1 - Status Quo
<dorchard> vote: 3
<GlenD> chad, details
<dorchard> chad, count
<chad> Question: unknown
<chad> Option 1: Status Quo (6)
<chad> Option 2: Add xs:any (4)
Marsh: move forward as is for this round of publication?
<chad> Option 3: Marsh's compromise (6)
No objections
<chad> 16 voters: alewis (1, 3) , Allen (3, 1) , Anish (3, 1) , Arthur (1, 3) , dorchard (3) , GlenD (2, 3) , JacekK (2, 3) , kliu (1, 2, 3) , pauld (2, 3) , RebeccaB (3, 1) , Roberto (2, 3) , sanjiva (3, 1) , Tomj (1, 3) , TonyR (1, 3, 2) , Umit (1) , youenn (3, 1)
<chad> Round 1: Count of first place rankings.
<chad> Round 2: Eliminating candidate 2.
<chad> Candidate 3 is elected.
<chad> Winner is option 3 - Marsh's compromise
Marsh: was PaulD's versioning text incorporated?
PaulD: some typos to be done by
EOB today
... will edit via CVS directly
Kevin: references example?
Arthur: will do
<Jonathan> ACTION: Arthur to update Service Reference part of primer. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
Marsh: thanks to everyone who edited the primer
Kevin: away whole of next week
<Jonathan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jun/0034.html
Marsh: Arthur raised new issue on feature composition
Arthur: component acquire
features and properties through references
... service or endpoint component not covered
Arhtur: service should inherit interface
Arthur: endpoint should inherit from service and endpoint
Sanjiva: is that not covered by extension rules?
Arthur: no, covered by f&p
section on composition
... also, interface should inherit f&p from interfaces it
extends
Glend: agrees
+1
<RebeccaB> +1
<Jonathan> ACTION: Arthur to fix composition models. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
Jjm: Implemented changes for <comp> and <prop>
Arthur: there were some issues
Jjm: they've been fixed today
Jjm: implemented fix for LC122 earlier this week
Marsh: objection to close with editor fix?
No objection
Marsh: spend no more than 15min
on this
... DaveO proposed some syntax options
... is there a necessity to validate twice?
Pauld: examples pretty good. Do
we really want to force people to performing validation?
... was difficult to embed in a single rule
DaveO: not well prepared on this topic today
Pauld: was trying to embed henry's algorithm
Marsh: has been wondering if really want to force people to validate messages. Maybe people don't.
<pauld> trying to find a way of expressing how a validator marks elements as 'notKnown' in the PSVI with some simple rules
Marsh: if we mandate Henry's algorithm upon validation, then maybe also have to mandate for extracting information from messages. Will perhaps be too invasive.
Sanjiva: any possible patent issue?
Pauld: Henry doesn't think so. His technique is in the spec
Tom: 2 points. 1: initially,
favourably inclined to proposal, nice way to handle
versionning. However, not as simple, a lot of complexity. Also,
may not cover all items.
... 2: weeks away only from Last Call. Too complex maybe to
handle right now. Starting maybe a year or 2 too late.
Pauld: maybe put on hold until next week, when there is a schema workshop.
Umit: will attend also that workshop, but will that help?
Pauld: missing step for me, is which element you can ignore without performing the validation step.
Marsh: so not an obvious proposal
today. Need something sufficiently concrete to present to the
WG.
... would also like to discuss this with schema next week
... would like to keep this moving forward. Some progress this
week, not as much as would have liked.
... any more discussion?
... move on, come back to WG after schema workshop
Umit: will proposal come before next telcon?
Marsh: my target, but will be
difficult. For the following telcon.
... specs will be ready next week, or at most the following
one, to vote for publication
Marsh: Bijan raised questions a few weeks ago
<Jonathan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005May/0083.html
Marsh: should we do anything in this document about non XML type system?
Jacek: we would raise a number of issues if we were to write an example WSDL
Marsh: this document does not have a lot of visibility
Jacek: maybe simple MIME example. Can proposal one
<scribe> ACTION: Jacek to propose a non-XML example, probably MIME-based, for next telcon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]
<JacekK> ACTION: JacekK to propose an example for using MIME as non-XML type system in WSDL by 2005/6/22 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action06]
<JacekK> ACTION- 5
<sanjiva> +1 to Amy: "Just don't do that"
Amy: people should not have multiple definitions for the same element
Jjm: is this not covered by some text I added to the spec this week?
Amy: could provide proposal for next telcon
Arthur: best leave it undefined
Marsh: any enthousiam for changing alt-schema document?
Arthur: in the core spec? normative document?
Marsh: no to both questions
Arthur: leave it to the editors of that document
Marsh: will ask Bijan is he has
proposal
... moving to Bijan's bullet 3
Amy: suggest not do it, no type union on multiple languages
Marsh: will give bullet 2 and 3 back to Bijan, asking if he has a proposal
ADJOURN