Web Services Description

17 Mar 2005

See also: IRC log


Rebecca Bergersen, IONA Technologies
David Booth, W3C
Allen Brookes, Rogue Wave Software
Roberto Chinnici, Sun Microsystems
Glen Daniels, Sonic Software
Paul Downey, British Telecommunications
Hugo Haas, W3C
Tom Jordahl, Macromedia
Anish Karmarkar, Oracle
Jacek Kopecky, DERI Innsbruck at the Leopold-Franzens-Universitšt Innsbruck, Austria
Amelia Lewis, TIBCO
Kevin Canyang Liu, SAP
Jonathan Marsh, Chair/Microsoft
Bijan Parsia, University of Maryland MIND Lab
Tony Rogers, Computer Associates
Arthur Ryman, IBM
Adi Sakala, IONA Technologies
Asir Vedamuthu, webMethods
Sanjiva Weerawarana, IBM
Umit Yalcinalp, SAP
Charlton Barreto, webMethods
David Orchard, BEA Systems




<Tomj> hi

<dbooth> Scribe: KevinL

review of action items

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.
HOLD      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 of Part 1.
?         2004-11-09: DaveO will recast the @compatibleWith 
                      proposal using an extension namespace. 
?         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.
?         2004-12-03: Glen and Asir to help craft the specific text 
                      for the editors (LC18).
DONE      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: Part 1 Editors to incorporate the text 
                      at 2004Dec/0022.html.
?         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 
DONE      2005-02-03: Part 1 editors to incorporate text from 
                      Jan/0026 and Feb/0006.
?         2005-02-17: Jacekk to help Bijan advance the RDF mapping work
DONE      2005-03-03: Jonathan will ask the WG what is the publication 
                      plan for the type system note around 3/17. 
?         2005-03-03: Asir to double check the subissues of 76d to 
                      see if they should be raised as issues and to 
                      do so. 
DONE      2005-03-04: Editors to merge parts 2 and 3, move the rpc 
                      style from part 1 into it and name the result 
DONE [.6] 2005-03-04: Roberto to come up with a proposal for LC75g
                      (wildcards in rpc style)
?         2005-03-10: Anish and Umit will respond to comments on 
                      media type description documents with our 
?         2005-03-10: Bijan will look at item Editors to move App C 
                      to RDF Mapping spec to see if it is still 
DONE      2005-03-10: Editors (Arthur?) to hide the Z from the 
                      normative version. 
?         2005-03-10: Editors to check URI and schema references in 
                      Part 1
DONE [.3, .4] 2005-03-10: Jonathan to notify the XMLP, i18n and XML 
                      Schema groups that we are prepared to 
?         2005-03-10: Marsh to troll minutes looking for more CR 
DONE [.5] 2005-03-10: Part1 editors to replace import/include table 
                      w/ that from Asir

[.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/2005Mar/0010.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Mar/0011.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Mar/0011.html
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0038.html


next F2F registration is ready

Tom: the Berlin F2F is the memorial day in us. I will have to miss two F2F due to holiday conflicts

Jonathan: it's too late to change the schedule
... Primer advanced topics contribution is due end of the month.
... Media type review. Issues reported by Marc Harley of SUN

<Marsh> ACTION: WG members review MTD by next week. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/17-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]

component model change. LC105

arthur: the idea is we want to a simple way to check top level component equivalence
... the way the spec is written makes it difficult to compare two top level components

<Arthur> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0074.html

arthur: the proposal is at url above
... the question is: is top level extension part of the component comparison?

jonathan: i think yes

more clarification and discussion on the proposal

scribe think the url for the proposal should be http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0066.html

asir: question about proposal item 2.
... seems mixing two levels of the components

arthur: extensions can be either added as a propoerty or a component

the first step is to say how it affect the component model

the problem I am trying to solve: you actually have to build up the component model before you can say how extensions affect the component model

scribe: the problem: if I have two top level components, one with extension, one without, otherwise they are same. Are these two components equivalent?

glen and Umit: we can not decide. it depends on the processing

arthur: we need some limitation here?

Umit: how about extensions under description element?

arthur: they can only be added as components
... not as top level properties

Roberto: I am troubled by the proposal

it throw out important case, eg. how to interpret wsdl:interface

sanjiva: changing the semantic of wsdl components will have the same effect of changing (scribe missed the rest ...)

jonathan: xslt and wsdl is different.

<Marsh> Sanjiva compares WSDL extension and XSLT extension, to suggest restricted extension is good.

<Zakim> Roberto, you wanted to say that "subversion" includes bug fixing

wsdl is processed by a variety of processors

arthur: the high level bit: do we want to allow cut paste top level components from different documents

<Marsh> Strawpoll: Components are equivalent iff they come from documents that have the same infoset.

many Nos

<pauld> chad, question: Components are equivalent iff they come from documents that have the same infoset.

<pauld> chad, option yes: yes

<pauld> chad, option no: no

<JacekK> vote: yes

<GlenD> chad got quite a workout in Boston too, he deserved a little vacation :)

jonathan: in xinclude, we only compare uri for equavelance.
... seems to me, if we get rid of diamond inheritance, we will be able just to compare uri

arthur: that's more restrictive

<Roberto> I have to leave to go to another meeting, but I'd like to go on record saying that I'm against the restrictions (1) and (2) in 2005Mar/0074.html and I would vote against them in a strawpoll

<pauld> chad, question?

<TonyR> chad: abstain

<sanjiva> chad, question?

<sanjiva> chad, options?

<sanjiva> chad: no

<dbooth> vote: yes

<asir> chad: no

<Allen> chad: no

<Arthur> vote: no

<hugo> chad: yes, no

<uyalcina> chad: no

<anish> chad: abstain

<RebeccaB> chad: no

<Tomj> chad: abstain

<bijan> chad: abstain

<alewis> chad: no, yes

chad: no

<pauld> vote: no, no, no

<GlenD> chad: abstain

<jjm> chad: abstai

<jjm> chad: abstains

<Marsh> vote: yes

<alewis> chad: count

<pauld> chad, voters?

<alewis> chad, count votes

<chad> Question: Components are equivalent iff they come from documents that have the same infoset.

<chad> Option no: no (9)

<chad> Option yes: yes (4)

<chad> 19 voters: alewis (no, yes) , Allen (no) , anish () , Arthur (no) , asir (no) , bijan () , dbooth (yes) , GlenD () , hugo (yes, no) , JacekK (yes) , jjm () , Marsh (yes) , pauld (no, no, no) , RebeccaB (no) , sanjiva (no) , scribe (no) , Tomj () , TonyR () , uyalcina (no)

<chad> Round 1: Count of first place rankings.

<chad> Candidate no is elected.

<chad> Winner is option no - no

<alewis> chad, details

* chad Election: Components are equivalent iff they come from documents that have the same infoset.
* chad Method: British Columbia STV
* chad Number of Ballots: 13
* chad Threshold Name: Droop Static Whole
* chad Threshold Value:  7.0
* chad Delayed Transfer of Surplus: Not Enabled.
* chad Batch Elimination: None
* chad 2 candidates running for 1 seats.
* chad  R|  no| yes|Exha|Surp
* chad --+----+----+----+----
* chad  1| 9.0| 4.0| 0.0| 2.0
* chad Round  1: Count of first place rankings.
* dbooth notes to sanjiva that that's never stopped us before ;)
* chad           Candidate no is elected.
* chad Winner is no.

jonathan: the winner is NO

arthur: it's just hard for processors. They don't know what to do when see top level extensions. throw an error? continue?
... duplicate top level components can be either included via diamond inheritance or cut/paste.

<GlenD> My regrets folks - I gotta drop off for another call now. Hasta la vista.

<GlenD> I'm in favor of my/Sanjiva's(/Umit's?) take on things, btw. Build the component model, it ain't that hard.

jonathan: any alternative proposal?

<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0074.html

<Zakim> asir, you wanted to ask a question

<sanjiva> I think we need to recognize that one CANNOT compute equivalence at the document level. Arthur's proposal is to change equivalence to be something in between name equivalence and structural equivalence.

<sanjiva> (of the corresponding component models)

lots of discussions on the 3 items in arthur's message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0056.html

arthur insists that there should be some principle determing if two components are equivalent, people say no

example: if there are two interfaces, they are same except they pointing to two different messages. are they equivalent? the weak way is, the interfaces are equivalent, but the messages are not. but the spec has a strong way. it says the two interfaces are not equivalent either

many are satisfied with the way the spec it's

<Marsh> RESOLUTION: LC105 closed with previous resolutions only, Arthur's last proposal not adopted.

arthur: Since the group don't see this as an problem. I am willing to withdraw the proposal. Maybe when people starts implment processors, they will see the problems.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: WG members review MTD by next week. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/17-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.117 (CVS log)
$Date: 2005/03/10 16:25:39 $