See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: GlenD
Approval of minutes
APPROVED
Action Items
Review of Action items [.1]. PENDING 2005-06-16: Amy to provide test cases for MEPs not described in Part 2, due 2005-07. PENDING 2005-07-20: DOrchard to respond to commenter on keeping mustUnderstand
DOrchard to respond to commenter on keeping mustUnderstand - PENDING
PENDING 2005-07-21: pauld to write a proposal for a working group report for requirements for schema evolution following closure of LC124
Hugo: talked to Michael S.McQ re: ignoreUnknowns, and I may have finished your AI :)
DONE [.3] 2005-09-01: Marsh to propose some text to address LC305 in
terms suitable for both WS-A and WS-D,
due 2005-09-08.
PENDING 2005-09-08: Kevin Liu to propose text for talking about IRIs
in primer (from Hugo's suggestion), due
2005-09-22.
DONE [.4] 2005-09-08: Marsh to write up LC315 proposal (simple content,
no type restriction), due 2005-09-15.
DONE [.5] 2005-09-08: Asir to put such an LC321 proposal together
(making {soap mep} optional property, specify
the error for SOAP 1.2 default binding rules),
due 2005-09-15.
Current Editorial Action Items
? 2005-07-21: Arthur to add stable identifiers for each
assertion, due 2005-09-26.
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/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Sep/0010.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Sep/0008.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Sep/0011.html
discussion of f2f
Marsh: no call during F2F - short call next week
Logistics for November F2F are up, more on the way re: transportation
<pauld> it's been moved fromTokyo to Yokohama ..
<asir> if you are looking for japanese rail passes, read http://www.nta.co.jp/english/rail/ - you have to buy this before you arrive in Japan
<Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to check with Bob on closing date for hotel registration. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/15-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
Marsh: Lack of formal notation for part 2 may have contributed to # of issues... maybe more Zed is the answer?
Hugo: Many more comments on part 2 than part 1 - spent a lot of time on part 1 partly due to Z-notation (finding issues, etc). Might help part 2.
Marsh: Any volunteers for moving this forward?
Arthur: will work with anyone to help with this
(lots of interest, but no cycles)
Marsh: when can we do this? Would be good to get it done ASAP, esp if it's going to raise issues...
Arthur: I'll take a crack at it, but no guarantees
(discussion of a Z-notation session at the F2F)
<pauld> a Z tutorial session / workshop would be cool!
Marsh: Should we just do the bindings?
Arthur: MEPs too, perhaps even abstract description of MEP
Arthur describes Z authoring process (pretty easy with right tools)
<Arthur> yes, there is a good zed url
<Arthur> google zed mike spivey
<Arthur> http://spivey.oriel.ox.ac.uk/~mike/zrm/
<Arthur> the zrm site has a pdf of the Z Reference Manual and the fuzz type checker
<Arthur> To learn Zed, there is a short tutorial in http://spivey.oriel.ox.ac.uk/~mike/zrm/zrm.pdf
<Arthur> you can download the fuzz type checker from http://spivey.oriel.ox.ac.uk/~mike/fuzz/
No response from Addr WG yet
Deferred
Hugo: Value of this required property must be an IANA media type token, but we don't say what that is
Hugo: only other use of that phrase is the media types note. We should define it...
Marsh: Any objections to adopting Hugo's proposal? (http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/#LC304)
(discussion of whether we need parameters)
Umit: No mention of "token" in the media types doc currently...
Hugo: originally just wanted to allow quality parameter, then wondered why restrict ourselves to just one?
Tom: Why allow parameters? What do they mean?
Marsh: Does this appear in the HTTP envelope, and allow params there if so?
Tom: Example of input serialization? "text/xml"?
Hugo: Wondering if we're
envisioning different kinds of XML serialization, and if so how
would they get declared?
... Maybe we should say serialization corresponds to MIME type
for HTTP response? Not sure about allowing parameters or
not...
Marsh: Sounds like the peanut gallery likes keeping things simple (no params), but if Hugo comes back with a good reason would they be acceptable?
Tom: We should say what a token is, but not do more stuff (params). Keep it simple.
<scribe> ACTION: Hugo to write revised proposal with clear direction on params (LC304) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/15-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
Marsh's proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Sep/0010.html
Marsh: Our usage is quite consistent with WSA already. We do illustrate extensions when needed, even though we don't show all extensibility points.
<uyalcina> it is good enough.
<RebeccaB> ship it!
<asir> Looks good
Marsh: mixed content is a single
case where we use italicized text, don't need to add that to
the general description
... Any objections to proposal?
(no objections)
RESOLVED to accept Jonathan's proposal for LC305
<Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to ask WS-A for the changes re LC305 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/15-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
Marsh's proposal - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Sep/0008.html
+1 to simple content
Marsh: could toss out structure for complex/mixed content
<JacekK> +1 to simple content
<charlton> +1 to simple content
(discussion of definition of simple type / simple content)
<Marsh> Proposal: "The element information item MUST be declared as a simple type or having simple content."
Umit: concerned about attributes - why shouldn't we worry about them?
Marsh: good to be able to add things like xml:id, but that doesn't change the actual value of the element...
Umit: Can we say attrs have no
bearing here like we do with RPC method signatures?
... If it's already ignored, that's cool
(discussion of the origin of the text (ADD feature))
Marsh: so what would we do with attributes if trying to turn an element into an HTTP header?
<charlton> got to nash for now - see you next week and at the F2F
Roberto: easy if we allow existing element decls and drop the attributes, although of course writing elements for this purpose wouldn't include them
Asir doubts anyone is going to use this feature
(scribe agrees)
Marsh: two proposals. Allow more types, and Hugo's "strict" proposal, which must be simple type (no attrs, no complex types)
PROPOSAL: elements must be simple types.
Jacek: Change name of property from element to type?
Marsh: symmetrical with soap:header, which has element...
Arthur: yes, but SOAP *is* XML, HTTP ain't
Marsh: Reason for structure that maps to both?
Glen: Part of what DaveO wanted from ADD - abstract sideband application data?
(discussion of encoding/escaping)
Marsh: Do we really want arbitrary data or are simple types OK?
DaveO: content-location and WebDAV depth headers are interesting... maybe not arbitrary XML...
Marsh: use type instead of element?
Jacek/Glen: Then how do you name it?
Someone: use name of type?
Arthur: why not just an attribute name=""?
Jacek: we were already forcing
people to make elements, now we can have them make types
... name="foo" type="simpleType" seems good
Marsh: seems like a new proposal would be good at this point...
(discussion of header serialization, multiple lines, escaping...)
Marsh: Need a volunteer to write this up. Just point to simpleType, not an element - anything else is an error. Rename element property to type (or simpleType), and also introduce name property.
Hugo: Why not just use element
with simple type restriction?
... doesn't this make the mechanisms different?
<scribe> ACTION: Jacek to look into escaping/serialization issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/15-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]
<Marsh> ACTION: Hugo to propose simpleType/header name for LC315. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/15-ws-desc-minutes.html#action06]
(Hugo describes issue)
Asir: specifying defaults is at the markup level. Default binding rules is more about interpreting the component model than constructing it. That's the difference.
Hugo: ok to define default for method in a different way than the query param or transfer coding?
Marsh: Strong opinions?
DaveO: we should be consistent, agree w/Hugo
Asir: LC324 captures this
Hugo: 6.10 is a better example than 6.6
PROPOSAL: Reorg as necessary using 6.10 as a model
Two kinds of defaults - a) syntactic (default attrs), which is single value per property, and b) algorithms for setting a value of a property based on other conditions (MEP in use, etc)
We are specifically looking at (a)
no objections to proposal
<scribe> ACTION: Hugo to reorg as necessary using 6.10 as a model (LC318) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/15-ws-desc-minutes.html#action07]
ADJOURN