See also: IRC log
<TonyR> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jun/att-0033/20060608-ws-desc-minutes.html
<TonyR> SCRIBE: TonyR
Chairs to invite XFire: done - Jonathan invited them
Jonathan to investigate SOAP 1.2 + .Net: done
Arthur to add wrappers to the schema: done
Arthur to put parent, feature, properties to the base schema: done
Arthur: we should add an {extensions} property to the component model to list the extensions supported by the processor, because we need this to clarify why two component models might differ given the same input documents
Jonathan to publicise interop: done
Arthur takes responsibility for the testcase for unknown extension with wsdl:required false
Arthur takes responsibility for the testcase for unknown extension with wsdl:required true
Arthur: Axis has reported that
they have complete integration with Woden
... has written an visa support letter for an attendee from
India
... need to build a validation report (used for comparing with
the test metadata, for comparing the assertion)
<scribe> ACTION: Jonathan to build a new XSLT to construct the validation reports [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/15-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
<lmandel> +1.416.95.aaaa = lmandel
<JacekK> scribe: Jacek
<JacekK> scribenick: JacekK
--------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Review of Action items [.1].
Interop
DONE 2006-05-11: [interop] Chairs to invite XFire to join this
call per Tom Jordahl's suggestion
RETIRED 2006-05-11: [interop] Jonathan to look into how to create
SOAP 1.2 services with .NET.
DONE 2006-06-01: [interop] Arthur to add wrappers to the schema.
DONE 2006-06-01: [interop] Arthur to put parent, features,
properties in the base schema.
? 2006-06-01: [interop] Jonathan to add sorting of soap modules,
http/soap headers.
? 2006-06-01: [interop] John to file issue whether {rpc
signature} should be OPTIONAL (4.1.1).
DONE 2006-06-01: [interop] Jonathan to publicize interop event.
? 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.
? 2006-06-08: [interop] Arthur to write test cases for messages
and message exchanges for a simple WSDL (eg: an
echo web service).
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.
? 2006-04-20: Glen to flesh out a model for runtime test
scenarios.
? 2006-06-08: Charlton to review the text appropriate to CR44
to ensure that it is adequately explanatory.
[.3] DONE 2006-06-08: Paul to address the issues in CR45 regarding
schema without namespace.
? 2006-06-08: Gil to write a response to the raiser of CR47.
DONE 2006-06-08: JacekK to respond to Jonathan re: cf050.
DONE 2006-06-08: Jacek to write a clarification to Arthur's
proposal, explaining that BindingFault is correct,
not BindingFaultReference.
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/2006Jun/0025.html
Glen: (re his action) I'll make a serious attempt to flush that out by the end of the week
Jonathan: the Toronto meeting is coming up soon
next meeting: June 29
<Arthur> coming
will be chaired by Tony
Jonathan: should we have telcon in the interop event week?
Arthur: 42
... the call could be useful to update the WG on progress
Jonathan: so we'll only dropping
06/22 call
... wrt the interop event, we seem to be pretty much set, Glen
please register
Glen: I'll only come if I get time before to work on the impl
Jonathan: interop TF meeting
talked about a group of issues that need to be resolved
... it's CR050 - an optional extension has required property
with default value
... question about when it's in the CM
Arthur: we need to be explicit
about what extensions a component model claims to know and
support
... we can't know what extensions are in effect by looking at a
WSDL document
<Arthur> MUST occur if the rpc extension is
<Arthur> supported AND the {style} property of
<Arthur> the Interface Operation component
<Arthur> contains
<Arthur> http://www.w3.org/2006/01/wsdl/style/rpc.
Arthur: (goes through particular occurrence constraints of extension properties)
Glen: so the property {style} would exist, and then the particular extension properties
Jonathan: so the rpc signature property doesn't have to appear when an operation doesn't follow the rpc style
Arthur: I'm proposing we add
{extensions} property to Description component
... presence of an extension property then depends on the
extension being present in the {extensions} property, and
possibly on other conditions as well
... 4.1: the RPC style is selected by including the URI in the
style property
Jonathan: but does that imply that the signature property has to be there?
Arthur: that's the
clarification:
... for the RPC extension, the co-occurrence constraint is the
existence of the RPC style on that operation
... in other words, the property is required, but we're
clarifying when it is required
... we may require that rpc:signature attribute would be
required
Glen: signature can be implied from the schema
Arthur: in that case, we are defining a default value
Jonathan: so the {rpc signature} prop could be optional?
Glen: we should have an example
there
... but we have all examples in the primer
Roberto: the {rpc signature} should be optional
Arthur: we can say here that it's optional, there will be more required extension properties
TonyR: not completely happy about making this optional, the information should be required
Glen: you can derive the information from the schema; we don't have rules for doing that
Jonathan: we may not need such rules, the user is free to interpret the operation as they wish
Glen: the rules could be useful
Jonathan: but the client doesn't have to use the RPC signature
Arthur: if the service provider wants to suggest a signature, they will provide it
Jonathan: it sounds like a
different issue, maybe Glen should raise it
... trying to do minimal changes to the spec to make it correct
and consistent
Glen: I prefer required property with algorithm for defaulting
Jonathan: there seem to be a few people for optional, a few for required
Arthur: we should request a concrete proposal for the defaulting algorithm in a timely basis
Glen: let's make it optional now, maybe a concrete algorithm can be proposed later
Jonathan: I'll add this issue (and send the email), propose that it become optional, others may counterpropose defaulting rules
<Jonathan> ACTION: File this issue. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/15-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
<pauld> wonders what the algorithm would be - do people care if one tool generates "bar echo(bar) " as opposed to "void echo(ref bar)"
Jonathan: so if it's optional,
it's only contributed when the extension appears
... any other preconditions?
... if I have rpc:signature but the style doesn't contain rpc
style?
Arthur: that'd be an error
JacekK: if somebody adds new style that's RPC-like, they couldn't reuse our attribute
Jonathan: their spec could add
that reuse (re-enable it)
... I'll add the options to the issue
<Arthur> MUST occur if the wsdlx extension is
<Arthur> supported.
Arthur: then there is the safety property
Roberto: the extension is wsdlx:safe, not wsdlx
Arthur: I propose that extensions are identified with namespaces
<Arthur> CR 050 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jun/0034.html
Jonathan: so you're proposing the
{extensions} property for Description component
... why does it need to be in the component model?
Arthur: we're trying to solve
question about validity of an instance of component model
... we need to know what extensions (by default optional) are
in effect
Roberto: but validity can be function of two arguments - component model + set of extensions
Arthur: I don't see adding
{extensions} to the CM as artificial
... you also embed DTDs, namespaces
Roberto: can we look at extension
model of XSLT?
... extensions not necessarily tied to namespaces
JacekK: maybe let's just add it to the interchange format, not to the component model
GlenD: this matters when reading
the syntax and building component model; and when checking
validity of component model
... we're talking about the latter here
Jonathan: yes, we don't have extension requiredness in the CM either
Arthur: re: extensions and
namespaces
... in W3C things are named with IRIs, extension spec should
have an IRI
... it's natural that the URI would be used as the
namespace
... but the URI need not be the namespace
Jonathan: the component model is
a "platonic ideal", adding this info violates that
... any given implementation can't know *all* the extensions,
it will have a limited view
... if I know extension foo and you don't and it's not used, we
may have trouble in comparing CMs
JacekK: the issue came up for testing, we can only say for our CR testing what extensions should be supported for it
Arthur: WSDL2 is extensible, it will have extensions, we also need to test the general mechanism
<Zakim> JacekK, you wanted to talk about role of interchange format
JacekK: the component model interchange format is only for the CR testing
Arthur: there were ambiguities discovered
JacekK: and we resolve the ambiguities and tell the buggy implementations that they are buggy
Jonathan: can we resolve that by
adding the {extensions} property?
... and extensions authors should be clear about when their
properties appear
Arthur: my proposal makes it very explicit when properties appear
Jonathan: it doesn't seem that adding the property actually solves our problem
JacekK: we don't have the URIs currently
Arthur: we do have 4 extensions and 4 uris, it would work
GlenD: we have 2 separate issues here: I think it's useful for extensions to have URIs; but I don't think it's necessary to have the list of support extensions in the component model
Jonathan: we can add a general prose in the core, but I'm unhappy about the property
GlenD: if I know 200 extensions, do I mention all of them?
Arthur: yes
GlenD: can we make this more efficient, only mention those used?
Jonathan: but a WSDL file doesn't have to use an extension for it to show itself in the component model in one parser
GlenD: lemme repeat: if my
processor understands addressing, when it reads any WSDL, it
will decorate operations with actions
... seems odd to me
Jonathan: in CR22 we're trying to address an alternative - re-parsing all WSDL files on import
GlenD: is this a processor-specific optimization?
Arthur: when do you add safety property?
Aq-
Arthur: I consider it a bad form
to have optional extensions have required properties or even
decorate components that don't get extension markup, but we
have examples of that out there
... in practice, every extension will probably have markup, so
they will have namespace, we can use it
JacekK: maybe let's rename the
URI .../wsdl-extensions to ../wsdl-safety, say all extension
have to have URIs, then we'll have them
... namespaces themselves are not quite good enough
Jonathan: is this only for component model comparison?
Arthur: also validation
Roberto: arthur says "given a
component model, is it valid?", I'd say "given a component
model and a set of extensions, is it valid?"
... only when you bring the info into the component model, you
need actual URIs
Arthur: there are two designs,
yes: component model and a bunch of specs; or you put the bunch
of specs in the component model
... the component interchange format would benefit
<Zakim> JacekK, you wanted to say component interchange format doesn't need it
JacekK: can we just extend the component model interchange format for our purpose here?
Jonathan: we can even only say
"let all our extensions be supported"
... back to CR22
... proposal: a WSDL file should be parsed independent on where
it's imported
GlenD: I'm curious about the
actual spec wording of this
... this might touch interestingly on how the processors work
with WSDL files
Arthur: you need some
considerations in the language design against inordinate
computing burdens
... none of the extensions we have so far would be affected
Jonathan: WS-A would also work for which we are fairly happy
<Jonathan> ACTION: Arthur to update CR022 proposal. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/15-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
Arthur: every required property in extensions needs to say when it's required
Jonathan: I feel we could add some text to part 1 on that
Arthur: I can try to do that
<Jonathan> ACTION: Arthur to propose part 1 test about REQUIRED extensions. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/15-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
Arthur: another specific problem - when are HTTP and SOAP bindings (extensions) present?
Jonathan: yes, that's CR55
... I'll try to consolidate the issues for next time
Meeting adjourned
implementors' call will still happen next week