See also: IRC log
Minutes approved
?* 2004-11-11: Anish to propose additions to the test suite for
the purpose of interoperability testing,
due 2005-05-12.
DONE [.5] 2004-12-03: Glen and Asir to help craft the specfic text for
the editors (LC18), due 2005-04-13.
<Marsh> ACTION: Editor's to incorporate GLen's LC18 suggestion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/12-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
? 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.
DONE [.6] 2005-04-21: GlenD to check scoping (Section 7.2) references,
due 2005-05-12.
AI (glend to check scoping) closed
<Marsh> ACTION: Glen to add scoping example. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/12-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
<Marsh> ACTION: Primer editors to remove section 7.1.2 - we don't define scoping rules for extension elements. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/12-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
? 2005-04-21: Pauld to craft, publish Common Schema structures
to WG for review for publication as WG Note,
due 2005-05-28.
? 2005-04-21: Hugo to continue to look at IRI style/URI style,
due 2005-05-26. (LC74a)
DUE 05-19 2005-04-22: Umit to write an alternate proposal,
due 2005-05-12 (LC117)
DUE 05-19 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 2005-05-12. (LC61c)
DUE 05-19 2005-04-22: Arthur to investigate the Schema Designators and
come back with a proposal, due 2005-05-12. (LC64)
DUE 05-19 2005-04-22: Amy to investigate a solution, due 2005-05-12
(LC74c)
DONE 2005-05-05: GlenD to write - to see replyTo default to
anonymous URI - comment to WS-Addressing WG, due
2005-05-11.
DONE [.3] 2005-05-05: Marsh to send a note to WS-A that more comments
will come, due 2005-05-11.
DONE [.4] 2005-05-05: Asir to enumerate what is pending for LC97, due ?.
? 2005-05-05: Umit to writeup a simple proposal to make {safety}
as an extension, due 2005-05-19.
DUE 05-19 2005-05-05: Sanjiva to writeup a proposal for LC71, due ?.
Outstanding editorial work:
DONE [.7] 2004-11-10: ? to remove ambiguity if it exists (ONMR-related)
? 2005-04-21: Hugo to define frag id extensions for
soap:header, http:header, soap:module. (LC80)
SEE [.8] 2005-04-28: Arthur to introduce specialized markup for
components and properties.
arthur proposed introducing specialized markup for components & properties
Arthur given the go ahead on this approach. AI remains open.
[.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/member-ws-addressing/2005May/0008.ht ml [.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005May/0027.html [.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005May/0039.html [.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005May/0037.html [.7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2005May/0063.html [.8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005May/0027.html
please make sure to register
scribe: to berlin f2f
back to AI
umit to finish hers AI by next week
Core, Adjuncts, Primer, and MTD specs published
WS-Addressing LC review
jmarsh: charlton said most comments were editorial
jacek: editorial comments could
be submitted by charlton
... comments that touch wsdl should be submitted by the wsdl
WG
<Zakim> asir, you wanted to say good bye!
<scribe> ACTION: marsh to ask charlton to send his comments to WSA except the wsdl11/20 terminology comment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/12-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
<sanjiva> wow that was like immediate departure :-(
<pauld> goodluck Asir!
Incoming last call Issue
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005May/0025.html
amy: wrote a sample template for
describing MEP
... what about adding the template in section 2 of the spec
?
sanjiva: hard for people to understand meps, the fault rules...
amy: I have an AI to demonstrate mep extension within the primer
<Marsh> ACTION: add MEP template as LC128 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/12-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]
<Marsh> RESOLUTION: Close as editorial, editors to incorporate appropriately.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005May/0027.html
<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005May/0027.html
three different styles for setting default values
<scribe> ACTION: editors to update core and binding documents with style A for setting default values [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/12-ws-desc-minutes.html#action06]
<Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to split ais for LC97. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/12-ws-desc-minutes.html#action07]
RESOLUTION: close 76b according Amy's proposal
jmarsh: comment from the schema
group to write multiple schemas for the same element
... XHTML as an example
... possible solution is to partition the wsdl:types section in
different types section for each message type
<sanjiva> +1 to TomJ: Just say no!
Tom: usecase is not compelling. That makes WSDL documents much more complicated
arthur: the real usecase seem to be an XML messaging protocol that has different schemas for the input and output
sanjiva: the use case may be real but the cost is too high
<Zakim> Marsh, you wanted to recall some of DaveO's earlier examples.
daveO: we could use schema import to specify the scope
<Zakim> alewis, you wanted to ask if this is our problem
amy: it sounds to be a schema problem not a wsdl problem
<dorchard> Amy, don't forget about multi schema language scenarios for a given name
pauld: can it be left to extension
<Zakim> Marsh, you wanted to wind up this topic for today
<uyalcina> +1 to sanjiva
<dorchard> I'm not too interested in pursuing this, as much as I think there is a problem...
<sanjiva> Given the lateness of our schedule I'd really like to see us "just say no" to this. There *is* a workaround.
jmarsh: any objection to close this issue with no action ?
arthur: you cannot rely on schema
import to do the scoping as it only defines a namespace
use
... this issue may be resolved by extension
<Arthur> suggestion: tell Paul to define a WSDL extension attribute @scd
<sanjiva> +1 for closing it now :-(
<sanjiva> oh well
jmarsh: another week of discussion for LC90
pauld: allowing more
"open-content" for xsd1.1
... is an interesting idea
... this might help evolution of messages
<sanjiva> Given we're within weeks of closing down the 2nd last call and given that there is no concrete proposal on the table I'd recommend we close this with no action. (Sorry Paul.)
jmarsh: this seems to be an extension to the last issue
<Tomj> I don't feel that the rationale for adding something like this is compelling and I think we should close with no action
Operation name mapping requirement
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0134.html
sanjiva reexplains his proposal
jmarsh: long discussion in WS-A to differentiate the wsa:Action and the soap action property
<Zakim> JacekK, you wanted to ask if this action could be made optional? Why is it mandatory?
umit: the action property will always be there, whether specified or computed using the default algorithm
jacek: is it optional or mandatory for all bindings ?
sanjiva: there is an action property which is always there. the binding then decides to serialize it or not
jacek: why is action mandatory
within the soap binding ?
... why should it be always serialized
sanjiva: if wsa is not turned on,
the action property will be serialized as soap:action
... if was is turned on as a soap module, the action property
will be serialized as was:action