See also: IRC log
<TonyR> Arthur: if I am processing a WSDL document and encounter an extension I do not recognise, with wsdl:required=true, is the document invalid?
<TonyR> Tony & Jonathan: yes, it is invalid (in the context)
<TonyR> Arthur: if, on the other hand, it is marked wsdl:required=false, is it valid?
<TonyR> Tony & Jonathan: yes, it is valid (unless otherwise invalid)
<TonyR> Arthur: just deciding where to put the test cases
<TonyR> Arthur: might be a good idea to issue a warning when encountering a unrecognised extension (even with required=false)
<TonyR> action item Arthur test cases for message exchanges from a simple WSDL - done
<GlenD> hi Tony!
<scribe> scribe: Roberto
Jonathan: minutes are approved
--------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Review of Action items [.1].
[Interop]
DONE 2006-06-01: [interop] Jonathan to add sorting of soap modules,
http/soap headers.
DUP 2006-06-01: [interop] John to file issue whether {rpc
signature} should be OPTIONAL (4.1.1).
? 2006-06-08: [interop] Arthur to create a testcase for
an unknown extension wsdl:required=true.
? 2006-06-08: [interop] Arthur to create a testcase for
an unknown extension wsdl:required=false.
DONE 2006-06-08: [interop] Arthur to write test cases for messages
and message exchanges for a simple WSDL (eg: an
echo web service).
DUP 2006-06-15: [interop] Jonathan to build a new XSLT to
construct the validation reports.
DONE 2006-07-06: [interop] Lawrence - violate operation style
assertions.
DONE 2006-07-06: [interop] Youenn - define documents for stub
generation.
? 2006-07-06: [interop] Jonathan - create validation-report
stylesheet.
DUP 2006-07-06: [interop] John - resolve Woden component model
interchange.
DONE 2006-07-06: [interop] Arthur - add xpaths for soap and http
to document.
DONE 2006-07-06: [interop] Philippe - violate http binding
assertions.
DONE 2006-07-06: [interop] Chathura - will do interop tests with
Youenn and Lawrence.
DONE 2006-07-07: [interop] Arthur to commit patches from yesterday
DONE 2006-07-07: [interop] Jonathan to fix Ant tasks for cm
interchange model format
DONE 2006-07-07: [interop] Jonathan to run WSDL XSLT over new
test suite
RETIRED 2006-07-07: [interop] John to contribute some test cases
DONE 2006-07-07: [interop] John to resolve Woden problems in cm
interchange format
? 2006-07-07: [interop] John to write spec text for transfer
coding
NONSENSE 2006-07-07: [interop] to contribute test cases for assertions
DONE 2006-07-07: [interop] Arthur to add TestMetadata.xml
validation to Ant scripts
DONE 2006-07-07: [interop] Lawrence to create message test cases
based on interop log files
DONE 2006-07-07: [interop] Philippe to add stats on the assertion
coverage page
? 2006-07-07: [interop] Arthur to include counts of good/bad
documents in document coverage report
WG
? 2005-07-21: Pauld to write a proposal for a working group
report for requirements for schema evolution
following closure of LC124
? 2006-03-30: Marsh to make XSLT improvements for RDF
publication.
DONE [.7] 2006-06-08: Gil to write a response to the raiser of CR47.
DONE [.6] 2006-06-15: Jonathan to file the issue rpc signature issue.
? 2006-06-15: Arthur to update CR022 proposal.
? 2006-06-15: Arthur to propose part 1 text about REQUIRED
extensions.
DONE [.4] 2006-06-29: Jacek to draft a response to Eric re: CR052
explaining that this represents a new use case,
and that we will not be able to address this as
such in the spec, but that it can be addressed as
an additional extension...
? 2006-06-29: Philippe to write up recommended text to clarify
the issue in CR53.
DONE [.5] 2006-06-29: Jacek to write a response to Eric correcting his
interpretation of the text as described in CR054.
? 2006-07-06: Glen to contribute some extension test cases.
DONE [.3] 2006-07-06: Roberto to propose text for CR044 and related
interface-less binding text.
DONE 2006-07-06: Arthur to update cm interchange schema to make
http cookies optional in the soap extension.
? 2006-07-06: John to write proposal for CR055 based on
discussion and Jacek's email.
Current Editorial Action Items
- none -
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/cr-issues/actions_owner.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jul/0046.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jul/0034.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jul/0035.html
[.6]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2006Jul/0002
.html
[.7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jul/0060.html
Jonathan: next telcon July
20th
... several people missing on July 27th
... not heard back on the SPARQL wsdl bug
... sees no reason for adding (d) to the issues list
... got query from WS-I BP asking for requiredness of
targetNamespace in wsdl 2.0
... little traffic on the list on this issue
Arthur: related to code
generation, where namespaces are mapped to packages
... also a good idea to avoid naming conflicts and simplify
things
... WS-I should recommend it
Jacek: namespaces are goodness and WS-I should mandate them
Arthur: very productive event,
the test suite got x3 bigger
... also got better reporting tools
... need WG members to help fill the gaps in the test suite
Jonathan: test cases for broken assertions a priority
<Arthur> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/
<Arthur> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/test-suite.xml
<Arthur> here's the woden site: http://incubator.apache.org/woden/
Jonathan: would like to have a new interop event in late September
Arthur: "implements" is a common word
TonyR: it's the endpoint that does the implementing, not the binding
Allen: how about "binds"?
Roberto: tried to avoid anything that conveyed a static relationship
<Jonathan> chad: new poll
<chad> new poll
<Jonathan> chad: question: terminology
<Jonathan> chad: option 1: applies
<Jonathan> chad: option 2: implements
<Jonathan> chad: option 3: binds
<Jonathan> Chad: option 1: is applied to
<Jonathan> chad: option 4: qualifies
<Jonathan> chad: question?
<Jonathan> chad: options?
<JacekK> vote: 1, 3
<Allen> vote: 3,1
<Arthur> vote: 3, 2, 1
<TonyR> vote: 4, 3, 1
<Gil> vote 4,3,1
<Jonathan> vote: 1, 2, 4, 3
<Gil> vote: 4,3,1
<youenn> vote: 1,2,3,4
vote: 1, 4, 2, 3
<Jonathan> chad, count
<chad> Question: terminology
<chad> Option 1: is applied to (4)
<chad> Option 2: implements (0)
<chad> Option 3: binds (2)
<chad> Option 4: qualifies (2)
<chad> 8 voters: Allen (3,1),Arthur (3,2,1),Gil (4,3,1),JacekK (1,3),Jonathan (1,2,4,3),Roberto (1,4,2,3),TonyR (4,3,1),youenn (1,2,3,4)
<chad> Round 1: Count of first place rankings.
<chad> Round 2: First elimination round.
<chad> Eliminating candidadates without any votes.
<chad> Eliminating candidate 2.
<chad> Round 3: Tie when choosing candidate to eliminate.
<chad> Tie at round 2 between 3, 4.
<chad> Tie at round 1 between 3, 4.
<chad> Tie broken randomly.
<chad> Eliminating candidate 4.
<chad> Round 4: Tie when choosing candidate to eliminate.
<chad> Tie at round 3 between 1, 3.
<chad> Candidate 3 has the fewest votes at round 2.
<chad> Eliminating candidate 3.
<chad> Candidate 1 is elected.
<chad> Winner is option 1 - is applied to
Jonathan: option 1 wins
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jul/0057.html
jacek: wants to avoid
interpreting these properties as component properties
... the proposed text doesn't do that
... describing his proposal (.7)
<scribe> ACTION: Roberto to produce an updated proposal for CR044 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
Roberto: that was the intent of the spec
Jonathan: no objections to approving the proposal
RESOLUTION: proposed solution to cr070 accepted
Roberto: proposes to close with no action
RESOLUTION: closed with no change to the spec
Jonathan: first part of the message is CR055
Arthur: the property won't be present unless the extension is known
Jonathan: so this issue seems to
be a duplicate of CR050
... last part of the issue is a typo
Arthur: it's already fixed
RESOLUTION: close CR072 as duplicate
Arthur: the rule was that we
wouldn't duplicate constraints already enforced by the
(normative) schema
... we could also leave them in and add them to a special
"enforced" class
Roberto: prefers consistency
TonyR: +1
Jacek: Remove "MUST"
Arthur: if you are constructing a component model without a document, there are many more constraints you risk violating
Jonathan: minimal change is to remove the assertion markup as change "MUST" to "is"
(actually, "MUST be" to "is")
RESOLUTION: close CR074 and fix those assertions by removing the assertion markup and changing "MUST be" to "is"
Arthur: proposal is to split sentences so that each MUST is its own assertion
Jonathan: #1 is a small
punctuation change (adding some commas)
... #1 accepted
... #2 is a single sentence with two MUST and MUST NOT but one
assertion
... #2, #3 accepted
... for #4 the proposal is to split the first sentence in two
and drop the last one
... #4 approved
... #5 is simply splitting in two
... #5 approved
RESOLUTION: close CR073, accept all changes and additionally split the first sentence in item #4 of the proposal
Jonathan: #1 proposal is changing the assertion markup
Arthur: make "MAY" into a
"may"
... and add "Note that" at the beginning
Jonathan: #1 adopted with
Arthur's amendment
... #2 is rewording the part with "MAY" and make the other
sentence a separate assertion
... #2 approved
Roberto: last bullet point in 4.2 has two assertions too
Jonathan: we could insert "furthermore" before the "MUST NOT" and mark it up as two assertions
RESOLUTION: close CR075, approve the suggestions with Arthur's amendment, have the editors also fix the last bullet in 4.2