WS Description FTF

27 Feb 2006


See also: IRC log


Charlton Baretto, Adobe Systems
Allen Brookes, Rogue Wave Software
Glen Daniels, Sonic Software
Youenn Fablet, Canon
Hugo Haas, W3C
Tom Jordahl, Adobe Systems
Anish Karmarkar, Oracle
Jacek Kopecky, DERI Innsbruck at the Leopold-Franzens-Universitšt Innsbruck, Austria
Amelia Lewis, TIBCO
Jonathan Marsh, Co-chair/Microsoft
Jeff Mischkinsky, Oracle
David Orchard, BEA Systems
Vivek Pandey, Sun Microsystems
Tony Rogers, Co-chair/Computer Associates
Asir Vedamuthu, Microsoft
Roberto Chinnici, Sun Microsystems
Paul Downey, British Telecommunications
Kevin Canyang Liu, SAP
Jean-Jacques Moreau, Canon
Sanjiva Weerawarana, WS02
Umit Yalcinalp, SAP


<scribe> scribe: jeffm

agenda review

agenda review

postpone WS-addressing WSDL LC discussion until tomorrow

aob -- none

minute approval

RESOLUTION: approved w/o change minutes telecon 16 feb 2006

action items

<Jonathan> 2005-10-20: Kendall DONE

<Jonathan> 2006-02-02: Jonathan DONE

2005-10-20 - Kendall - close

2006-02-16: Arthur/Tom - pending

<Arthur> i did my review

2006-02-16: Arthur/Tom - close
... Roberto - DONE
... Jonathan - 3 items - DONE

<Arthur> fyi - my ws-a wsdl binding comments are at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Feb/0054.html

Status of deliverables

rechartering - new WSD Charter in front of AC -- waiting for a companies comments -- you know who you are

philippe: why are companies here not willing to commit to an implementation

glen: we are waiting for MS to commit

philippe: concerned that more progress is not being made

<GlenD> Philippe said "are you all just waiting for MS?" I said "We're expecting MS *not* to do it, so what's the point?" (half-smiley)

jmarsh: MS is not including support in v1 of WCF aka indigo
... there are some hooks
... for 3rd parties, will evaluate for future releases

alewis: tibco wasn't planning until after CR in any event; there are other factors - but can't really divulge those details of product plans
... need more evidence of maturity
... e.g. woden

philippe: did we just miss the market window? should we keep investing w3c resources

hugo: woden is ongoing; bluestem is interested and is doing an implementation

philippe: if we are still in CR in one year, what should we do?
... would like WG to produce a doc explaining why people should switch from wsdl 1.1 to wsdl 2.0

jmarsh: reality is amount of work to do wouldn't really justify holding a f2f here, except that it is piggy-backed on the Tech Plenary

alewis: less expectation is that spec will change radically
... this is a good thing -- tibco put impl plans on hold a year ago because the spec was changing to fast

jmarsh: formal work by arthur has contributed to feeling that spec is quite solid -- remaining issues really are focused on http binding

tom: "no one" (except tom/glen) here are actually working on the implementations
... havent seen a shift in WG attendance to implementors -- adobe looking at apache/woden

alewis: ASF looks "good enough" that a lot of companies will probably just pick it up

jmarsh: CR 2 purposes - make sure spec is technically correct -- 2nd is this spec important enough to industry to warrant moving to REC
... think spec is very solid, so really the issue is whether there is/will be enough industry interest
... not clear that impl experience will be sufficient by sept.
... is a year enough -- maybe we should have a 2 yr CR -- should we put the group "to sleep", disband, etc.
... anticipate once RDF is done, not much to do

hugo: people should reply to the call for review
... response is team confidential -- would appreciate an indication that the WG matters, or not

jeffm: why not put the WG into a quiescent/dormant mode -- infrequent calls when there are issues - and wait for another implementations

philippe: technically process doesn't require 2 impls, but the Director has to be satisfied :-) and he has set the bar at 2 impls

jmarsh: thinks this was fun :-)
... we can make sure that the one impl is high quality, and have good test suites -- will make it much easier for folks to do additional impls
... will discuss woden status in more detail tomorrow

glen: need more than just woden -- also need axis2
... i.e. need something that does the soap piece too

jmarsh: possibly talk about a test suite impl-fest in may/june timeframe

glen: notes such an event also forces debugging the test suite

expected schedule RDF meeting

jacek: work ongoing -- no mapping tables yet - will have doc that incorporates issue resolutions, and example, and partial xslt style sheet (no official standing)
... not many issues
... mapping tables production are essentially routine technical work that is just taking a while to get resources to complete
... if the work is not done by end of march, then that would be a good indication that there really is not enough organizational interest in pursuing the rdf work

jmarsh: once that work is done, LC period for at least 6 weeks


hugo: WG needs to a pub at least every 3 months for every deliverable -- even if it is only to state that no work has occurred
... reads from the tablets -- .errr Process
... notes the Process really only says "SHOULD"

alewis: CR published jan 6, not very many chgs -- mostly editorial -- but chgs for http binding may require a new LC
... notes assertions may provide a good reason to re-publish

jmarsh: any reason not to republish once we get editorial, assertions, and issue resolutions done
... part 0, 1, possibly part 2 which could be split

RESOLUTION: wait until assertions are done and then republish (satisfying heartbeat requirement) - no objections
... close issue 107 -- no action

break 20 minutes

<Jonathan> resuming

Cover page at http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl?

jmarsh: at one time TR/soap pointed to the SOAP 1.1 Note
... people assumed that would be a stable uri to the 1.1 Note, but of course it was updated to be the SOAP 1.2 uri
... so we will have a similar question/issue for WSDL

hugo: TR/<shortname> always points to the latest version
... ended up having TR/soap point to a "cover page" which has links to both soap 1.1 and soap 1.2 docs
... of course this did introduce some "issues" for docs which did not point at a "specific/dated" version
... Question to WSDL WG for opinion on either chging tr/wsdl to point to a)cover page b)current version which would be wsdl 2.0

tom: in favor (at maximum) changing to cover page

anish: problem is exactly what soap faced
... compromise with cover page for soap was a good one, we should do the smae thing for wsdl

hugo: options 1)chg to latest 2)chg to cover page 3)leave it at wsdl 1.1 4)no opinion

anish: seems like another piece of the problem is that w3c chose wsdl2 rather than wsdl as the shortname

jeffm: suggests that WG adopt 2) chg to cover page as its advice to W3C

jmarsh: majority prefers cover page solution

tonyr: suggests that it might be a good idea for the W3C to create TR/wsdl11 which will point at the wsdl 1.1 Note



proposed resolution from roberto: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Feb/0016.html

glen: really says update the assertion list to capture the must not and (the real change) correct the mistaken attr ref to be an element

<Arthur> in <property> constraint is a child element, not an attribute

RESOLUTION: accept Roberto's proposed resolution - unan

CR009 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR009

hugo: raised the issue -- prob soap 1.1 allows an empty string, but we use an URI which doesn't
... therefore we should allow an empty str in addition to absolute uri

asir: its an optional prop - in soap 1.2 maps to not there, in soap 1.1 it maps to ""
... in soap 1.2 "" is not allowed

tom: should be able to specify "" as soap action

alewis: it is illegal to have "" as soap action in soap 1.2

hugo: started a wiki which would be a good place to put a description of the various actions in soap, wsdl, media types, etc.

jmarsh: certainly should clarify in section 2.3 make clear that "" is allowed

<charlton> hugo, would this be a good place to put a WSDL 2.0 FAQ?

<hugo> Web services wiki: http://esw.w3.org/topic/WebServices

<hugo> charlton, yes, that would be great!

jmarsh: clarify quoted-string by calling quoted empty string ("")

<Jonathan> quoted empty string value ("")

RESOLUTION: adopt proposal to add clarification to say quoted empty string value ("") - unan

CR010: Type in HTTP binding http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR010

RESOLUTION: accept proposal - unan

CR012 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR012

semantics of import

wsdl: import to be specific

alweis: do we need to as specific about include as import?

<asir> here is the tail end of this thread

<asir> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Feb/0026.html

alewis: propose close no action because assertion is adequately expressed in the required namesapce attribute

<hugo> ohoh, we don't have RRSAgent...

<JacekK> ack


jmarsh: include MUST be derefencerable, import does not HAVE to be

jacek: observes the current text is technically correct, but re-wording the assertion might make it clearer

<jeffm> jmarsh: include MUST be derefencerable, import does not HAVE to be

<jeffm> jacek: observes the current text is technically correct, but re-wording the assertion might make it clearer

<jeffm> RESOLUTION: close by accepting the text that is in the editor's draft in section 4.2.1 (2nd must in last sentence)

<jeffm> break for lunch 90 minutes

<jeffm> after lunch we will do the 2 http issues, including whether or not yank it

<Jonathan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Feb/0050.html

<scribe> Scribe: anish


Hugo: the WSDL architechture is not build towards HTTP, but it is pretty nice.
... there are problems. The context has changed. There is WADL.
... Mark finding issues is a shame as we have not received reviews from the right people. I have conflicting feelings about it.
... I don't think throwing it away is the right thing. But not sure if the right people are going to use this.

JM: we can always respond, if this tool does not do what u want, use a different tool

Hugo: I think Mark has some good points
... We have to see if it gets implemented.
... we have done some good work and we should fix any bugs

JM: does Woden support/has done work for HTTP binding

Arthur: all the bindings in the spec should be supported in the API and validator
... but Woden does not support it, it is upto Axis 2 to do that

Glen: I don't know of any specific plans in Axis 2 at this point to do this
... it is possible that it happens

Arthur: we should try to hook-up with AJAX/PHP folks
... there is an Apache project starting up about AJAX

JM: what i'm hearing is that the impl. status of HTTP binding is not much worse than the rest of the spec.

<charlton> HTTP Binding is far more suitable to REST-style services - agree that we need to have such RESTful technologies look at how we've written the HTTP Binding

Hugo: I would approach this comment is to address the comments. It should be easy to address those

Amy: the commentary on the composition of the WG -- it is nonsense

Hugo: we could have a preface in the HTTP binding that says -- we can't describe the Web with this binding, but a certain class of application.

JM: if we get 2 impl. of rest of the spec and soap binding, what do we do then? If we pull it out, do we have to go to LC?

Hugo: it is completely optional.
... we could make it a separate document if that happens -- that is a possibility

JM: i would like to enum all our options
... a) fix the problems and leave it in there
... b) carve it out, looked at this during last f2f and decided to leave it in
... (some attributes that are common to SOAP binding)

Asir: there is http:location

Jonathan: b1) keep it in CR
... b2) mark it at risk

hugo: procedurally do a tiny LC

tony: i think hugo is taking the timing issue too lightly

hugo: we don't have to worry about impl. having to redo their implementation

jonathan: any thoughts on the options?

Charlton: option (a) seems reasonable

Jonathan: other option is to mark it at risk

tony: marking it at risk is a cheap operation

<charlton> lowest impact option i think is to address the comments and leave it in there

Jacek: this could be a self-fulfiling prophecy

Jonathan: if we mark it at risk, what do we do with the http:location?

Tom: just make it go away

<discussion on WADL>

Glen: does Mark mention WADL?

Amy: he does mention it

Tony: i honestly think there is no harm in marking it at risk.

Hugo: if no one implements then we have an answer, if there are implementations then we have that answer

JM: Mark was a member of the WG, he could have pointed out the bugs then

Hugo: putting in a warning about inability to express every HTTP application might make him happy

<discussion on HTTP operations>

<charlton> Still, adding the warning and addressing the comments seems the easiest path

Jonathan: i detect a lack of enthusiasm

Amy: if soap binding depends on it, then marking it at risk may be an issue

Jonathan: the syntax would change -- different namespace
... for http:location

Amy: it is sensible to have the location in 'http' rather then 'soap'
... as other bindings show up, there are going to have some form of addressing syntax
... i don't see a clean way to do that, unless we create a minimal http binding which says: http binding and that's it

Tony: is our soap binding independent of http. What happens if I use SMTP

Amy: our binding is explicitly for soap over http, but we don't prevent someone from using it for smtp
... they will have define it

<discussion on how this works>

amy: we could change it to have soap binding have its own addressing mechanism, but that reopens some questions

glen: i don't think we need to do that

amy: we resolved these issues and were hard fought. Changing it now may change the meaning slightly
... the question of whether it (location) is optional, whether it can contain an empty string, whether it is a locator or an identifier etc
... changing it makes me nervous
... as soon as you move it from http to soap, the formally closed issues may have to be reopened

<charlton> It doesn't seem as low risk to label it as "at risk"

asir: the location seems to be an independent piece

Amy: we could publish an http binding with just a 'location'

asir: what changes?

Amy: it makes soap over http the only valid binding

Glen: we have an error in the soap binding

<GlenD> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-adjuncts-20060106/#soap-protocol

glen: what we mean to say that the underlying protocol uri is a soap binding uri and not a uri to the wsdl binding component

amy: we should fix that, open an issue

<scribe> ACTION: Glen to open an issue around WSDL binding component issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]

Jonathan reads the description of the issue about section 6.4

Jonathan: it is about the http version
... is the obvious solution to strike section 6.4?

amy: there is a comment in this issue suggesting that the attribute/property is inappropriately specified -- the tranfer-coding

<discussion on the version property>

tom: it doesn't seem like a valid subissue

jacek: lets not get hung up on Mark's style
... we used to have http status reason in there. It is totally useless. We dropped it
... we could drop this one too, same reasoning. We didn't think about it much and put it there
... HTTP version can be negotiated
... the Web seems to work quite well, without this

Tom: that requires a round trip to figure out the http version, this seems like a good optimization

Jonathan: the default is 1.1

<charlton> This is required information

RFC 2145: Use and Interpretation of HTTP Version Numbers

<more discussion on what 2145 says and how http versioning works>

tom: i can support getting rid of it

<charlton> RFC 2145 infers that HTTP version is specified by the client which is negotiated at the server

amy: why not make it optional?
... less change
... and defaulting to http 1.1

jonathan: that is what is the current status

<discussion on defauting the version and requireness>

Tom: this is giving the http version of the server, this is an optimization, but willing to give it up to fit things better

Glen: second that

amy: i could see us dropping it

Jonathan: in favor of removing section 6.4?

in favor: 6

no one objects

RESOLUTION: remove section 6.4 and associated editorial work

Mark's comment: - Section 6.6 constrains the data model of HTTP header field-values

to XML Schema simple types. This is an unnecessary and crippling

restriction; while those who are looking at the Web through a Web

Services toolkit may not mind, it's bad for the rest of the Web.

Amy: http headers are string

anish: we could get back to him and saying we think simple types work, what do you suggest

glen: yes

jonathan: instead of asking him, can we provisionally reject it?

Glen: yes. we can explain that we discussed it and we don't see the problem

RESOLUTION: we'll reject that particular comment, not make any change. It is not clear what other types Mark thinks are appropriate. This is not a general http header description language

Next subcomment: "Section 6.6.6 puts all HTTP headers in a WSDL-specific namespace,

thereby fracturing it from other efforts to uniquely identify HTTP



Jacek: there is a header component and a header name, which are different

Jonathan: he wants the http header component to uniquely identify http header names

amy: we adopt Jacek explanation

Jacek: what we identify here is components as opposed to header, we use the restriction of wsdl which says that one component per http header and we use this restriction to identify the component with the header name but we do not identify the header

RESOLUTION: adopt jacek's explanation (above)

next subissue: "Section 6.9 specifies a mechanism for advertising transfer coding

support, even though this is a hop-by-hop and dynamically negotiated

facility. If an intermediary is interposed, this information will

become useless and potentially harmful.


<JacekK> and the component gives a value, so we identify the "binding from the name to the value"

anish: this issue is similar to the version issue -- this is an optimization, treat it like the version -- be consistent

Desire to drop this in the room

next subissue: "- Section 6.10 encourages the use of cookies, which makes HTTP

interactions stateful, thereby losing substantial benefits of the Web.

amy: if all we are doing is providing support then we should just reject the comment

hugo: i'm pretty sure daveo will scream if we drop it

Jonathan: since daveo is in the room lets discuss Mark's comment (going back to version)

Jonathan sumarizes the comment on version and the WG discussion/tentative resolution

daveo: http is a description protocol
... from wsdl-land one can describe things statically

jonathan: there is also transfer-coding which is hop-by-hop
... this damages the abilities to describe it in wsdl

glen: it is an optimization

daveo: so is auhentication, but it is nice to know in advance

amy: things like authentication are independent of intermediaries, whereas the other can change with http intermediaries

<discussion of version and tranfer-encoding headers and its utility in description>

jacek: daveo raised a valid pt. that when this optimization is used in wsdl, it may result in sub-optimal usage. We have an optimization for a minor set of usecases and in this set there is another minor set of usecases where things are suboptimal

daveo: we agree that an intermediary may make this information useless, however the % of time that this info is useful is a worthwhile and not harmful

amy: if Mark could specify what fashion this is harmful ...

RESOLUTION: drop version, keep transfer-encoding

daveo: there is no warning from w3c about use of cookies

hugo: i dont think use of cookies is a good thing, i'm reiterating my position, if nobodies position has changed then lets move

RESOLUTION: no action on cookie issue

<scribe> new subissue: "Section six fails to take into account more complete and mature

efforts surrounding HTTP, such as WebDAV (e.g., the property model,

WebDAV ACLs, collections), making it difficult to accommodate this

work later.


hugo: you can use extensibility

RESOLUTION: not do anything about WebDAV, we have extensiblity or a separate binding, or use WADL

<charlton> DaveO posited how many people have brought up WADL on the list in the last few months

jonathan: since this was cc'ed to TAG, we should craft a good response to this

<scribe> ACTION: Tony to respond to Mark's comment (issue CR011) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]


<back from break>


Jonathan: from previous telcon -- the element of the proposal was to loosen restriction on local element children
... they are matched in order

amy: worth noting that SPARQL is using HTTP binding and dropping it may be a problem

tony: will this take us to LC?

Jonathan: any other solution we want to consider?

hugo: in order to fix this we need to change 2 bullets in IRI style
... don't know if it will take us to LC
... if we remove maxOccurs is 3rd bullet and remove 6th bullet + some text -- will resolve the issue

amy: can we get proposed text

jonathan: we also need to remove the sentence "An element MUST NOT be cited ..." in section
... does anybody think this will require us to go to LC

hugo: it is a minor change that we need to get right

amy: we should take into account the needs and usecases of people who are using this stuff

tony: does wsdl describe fixed size array or a var. size array?

jonathan: not really. The question is if there isn't enuf data to fill you array what do I do?

amy: in that case we say that this is an error
... in bullet 3 we need to strike the entire clause about minOccurs/maxOccurs having a value of 0 or 1

<general head-nodding about that>

Jonathan: elements of the solution are:
... 1) remove minOccurs/maxOccurs
... 2) remove restriction on duplicate element names
... 3) removing the restriction in 6.1.1 (about the element MUST NOT be cited ...)
... 4) add some text matching up tokens with data in order
... 5) more tokens than data is a fatal error

<scribe> ACTION: Hugo to write up text that captures the above points by tomorrow [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]

[chair] Hugo presented this and we agreed.

RESOLUTION: Accept proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Feb/0061.html


Jonathan: any objections to providing the text to the editors to resolve this issue

no objections

Jonathan decrees that this will be CR014

<Jonathan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Feb/0058.html

amy: i don't think this is an issue

jonathan: this is a whitespace separated list
... proposed resolution -- add in section 2.16 that list means whitespace separated "things"

RESOLUTION: resolution of that issue as proposed by Jonathan

The issue above will be CR15


Jonathan: this will be issue CR16
... This looks like a feature request

<discussion on this email>

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Glen to open an issue around WSDL binding component issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Hugo to write up text that captures the above points by tomorrow [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Tony to respond to Mark's comment (issue CR011) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03 $