See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Roberto
minutes approved with no objections
? 2005-07-21: pauld to write a proposal for a working group
report for requirements for schema evolution
following closure of LC124
? 2005-09-26: Arthur to look for simplification options for
comment 12 of 344. (LC344#12), due 2005-10-06.
? 2005-09-26: Jonathan to point this out when it gets
Implemented (LC344#13), due 2005-10-06.
? 2005-10-20: Bijan to contact WG to ask for contribution to
test suite, due 2005-10-27.
DONE [.5] 2005-10-27: Jonathan to schedule january/february meetings,
due 2005-11-03.
DONE [.4] 2005-10-27: Marsh to send tony's comments on behalf of working
group, due 2005-11-03.
DONE [.3] 2005-10-27: Marsh to remind WG members of change in times, due
2005-11-03.
? 2005-10-27: Umit to look at SOAP 1.1 binding whether soap
action on response is prohibited or ignored (should
be ignored), due 2005-11-03.
Current Editorial Action Items
? 2005-07-21: Arthur to add stable identifiers for each
assertion, due 2005-09-26.
DONE [.6] 2005-09-26: editors to fix the first paragraph of section 4
... does not make sense at all right now.
(LC344#5), due 2005-10-06.
DONE [.6] 2005-09-26: Editors to add a sentence saying {address} is
optional because it could be defined by other
means, such as an WS-A endpoint reference or maybe
the scenario does not require an address.
(LC344#13), due 2005-10-06.
DONE [.6] 2005-09-26: Editors fix "Case Elements NOT cited" in 6.8.1.2
header to be "Case of elements NOT cited" (LC345),
due 2005-10-06.
Note: Editorial AIs associated with LC issues recorded at [.2].
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/actions_owner.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Nov/0000.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-cg/2005Oct/0001.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Nov/0001.html
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Nov/0012.html
the host sent a package with directions to all participants
<hugo> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/5/11/hf2f/
hugo: the directions are online at the given url
Marsh: sent a proposal for the
January meeting to the list
... Wed and Thu telcon (Thu/Fri down under)
... starting one hour earlier than the regular concall
... no objections to adopting those times and days of the
week
... exclude Jan 18/19 based on feedback
... Jan 11/12 conflicts with BPEL f2f in NC
... also push back on Jan 4/5
... proposal to adopt Jan 25/26
... no objections, Jan 25/26 adopted as the plan of
record
... Feb meeting on 27/28
hugo: happening tomorrow
Marsh: asking for interest in
providing feedback to the sparql wsdl 1.1 document
... we can either review it as a WG or have individuals provide
comments
... no interest in the WG adopting this as a work item (lack of
resources)
<Jonathan_Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to respond to SPARQL about WSDL 1.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/03-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
<dorchard> I won't be able to dialin for much of my wednesday night, thursday mid-day in japan.
Marsh: joint meeting
schedule
... presentation for the benefit of the WG by the WSA folks on
the WS-A WSDL binding
... then discussion of any async issues
... finally, two TAG-related issues
DaveO: the tag is saying that if
you identify things by uri you get all the benefits of the
web
... if you don't (eg EPR parameters), you may not
... the tag is starting to look into this, there are a few more
things hidden in the issue
... originally issue brought to the tag was that the address
you see may not be the final one
... the larger issue is about identifying state
Marsh: not much material yet for a concrete discussion
DaveO: the schedule of deliverables is not affected by the tag requests
hugo: is there a draft of the tag finding on state management?
DaveO: not yet, just a proposal for now
<Zakim> asir, you wanted to ask a question
asir: is there a specific request from the tag for the wsdl wg?
Marsh: no, there isn't
... other agenda changes
... roberto requested LC333 to be moved to Friday
... no objections, we'll do that
... for rechartering, asking for a straight time extension,
with no substantial changes
... please talk to your AC rep about the patent policy change
issue
... then LC304, several proposals available
hugo: improved own proposal to address some of the concerns raised
Marsh: LC345
... be ready to close this issue next week
... LC333
... proposal by roberto
describes his proposal
jacekk: raised the issue, likes the proposal
alternative is drop interfaceless bindings and require that an binding component contain a binding operation component for each operation in the bound interface
TomJ: asking for procedure to give a proxy for the CR vote
hugo: you are always free to give
a proxy to anybody for any reason
... in this case, the default vote is "I want to go to CR"
Marsh: if you have concerns about
going to CR, you should send mail beforehand
... if you have concerns about going to CR, you should send
mail beforehand
test
test
Marsh: if you have concerns about
going to CR, you should send mail beforehand
... other issues 344/353/357
... proposal from arthur on LC344
... proposal from arthur on LC353 just mailed to the list
... LC357 mostly editorial
<Arthur> I propose the following text to resolve LC 353 [1]:
<Arthur> "A valid WSDL 2.0 component model is a set of WSDL 2.0 components and properties that satisfy all the requirements given in this specification as indicated by keywords whose interprettation is defined by RFC 2119."
<Arthur> This definition should go after the first sentence of section 2 of Part 1 [2].
<Arthur> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/#LC353
<Arthur> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-20050803/#component_model
Marsh: on Fri afternoon, exit criteria and vote to CR
arthur: we need to complete the
test suite (positive and negative tests)
... adding markup to the spec identifying all MUST and MUST NOT
assertions
Marsh: LC315 schema pattern
... proposal from hugo for a schema pattern for http
headers
... proposal is adopted
... LC315 duplicate headers
hugo: when we changed the way the
HTTP headers work, we forgot to change the IRI identification
for these components
... proposal is to use wsdl.extension
... for this to work, we need to make sure that for each
component we have at most one http header with a given
name
... added this constraint to the spec
Marsh: is this a new issue or just editorial?
jacek: it's not purely editorial, since we are adding a restriction
Marsh: fix is approved with no
objections
... fault propagation rulesets
arthur: FPRs are mentioned in
part 1 and refer to part 2 definitions
... proposal is to amend part 1 so that it doesn't refer to
specific FPRs from part 2
... also proposes to introduce IRIs for these FPRs
Marsh: do we really need new IRIs?
arthur: that would be more consistent with this being an extension point
Marsh: these IRIs would not appear in any document
arthur: they could be used by an organization that wants to refer to these rulesets in defining their own MEPs
<Zakim> JacekK, you wanted to point out RDF mapping does have uris for that
jacek: the RDF mapping has IRIs for these rulesets
arthur: in part 1 we would not be referring to any particular rulesets
hugo: how many IRIs are you proposing to add?
arthur: 3
... they would be used in the template for each MEP that uses
them
Marsh: proposes using fragment identifiers
roberto: worried that using IRIs is a slippery slope towards a MEP definition language or having a MEP component
Marsh: will add this item (using
IRIs or not for FPRs) to the agenda for next week
... arthur will go ahead and fix the references from part 1 to
part 2
... last issue: What should be declared as a Fault in a
WSDL
arthur: should mention this in the primer
Marsh: or should we mention that
in the definition of fault
... will add this item to the agenda for the f2f
<Jonathan_Marsh> ACTION: Arthur to propose text for "What should be declared as a Fault in WSDL". [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/03-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
<Jonathan_Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to add this as an issue. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/03-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]