WS Description WG telcon
26 Oct 2006

See also: IRC log


Allen Brookes, Rogue Wave Software
Youenn Fablet, Canon
Jacek Kopecky, DERI Innsbruck at the Leopold-Franzens-Universit├Ąt Innsbruck, Austria
Amelia Lewis, TIBCO
Philippe Le Hegaret, W3C
Jonathan Marsh, Co-chair/WSO2
Jean-Jacques Moreau, Canon
Vivek Pandey, Sun Microsystems
Gilbert Pilz, BEA Systems
Tony Rogers, Co-chair/Computer Associates
Asir Vedamuthu, Microsoft
Roberto Chinnici, Sun Microsystems
Paul Downey, British Telecommunications
Tom Jordahl, Adobe Systems
Arthur Ryman, IBM
Asir S Vedamuthu


<plh2> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Oct/att-0065/foo.html__charset_utf-8

<chinthaka> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/report/

<chinthaka> WS-A reports

<chinthaka> The test home : http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/Overview.html

<plh> SOAP request-response/

<plh> SOAP soap-response/

<Jonathan> ACTION: Jonathan to create set of wire level test WSDLs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/26-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]

<scribe> Scribe: Asir S Vedamuthu

<scribe> ScribeNick: asir

<scribe> Meeting: WSDL WG Conference Call

<scribe> Chair: Jonathan Marsh

Approval of minutes:

Last week minutes are at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Oct/att-0050/20061019-ws-desc-minutes.html

Resolution: approved

Review of Action Items

Review of Action items [.1].

?         2006-07-06: [interop] Jonathan - create validation-report
?         2006-07-20: [interop] Jonathan to add timestamps to result
?         2006-10-12: [interop] ALL to ponder how to run the tests.
?         2006-10-19: [interop] Arthur to generate the component models 
                      for the messages. 

?         2006-07-06: Glen to contribute some extension test cases.
?         2006-09-21: Jonathan to check periodically that SPARQL has added
?         2006-09-28: Marsh to suggest some generic conformance text
?         2006-10-12: pdowney to review the Schema WG note on versioning 
                      in 1.1.
DONE [.3] 2006-10-19: Jonathan will send comments, correct schema error, 
                      and invite them to contribute the test case. 
DONE      2006-10-19: contact Coordination Group and move Youenn's proposal
                      to XMLP. 
?         2006-10-19: Jacek will expand the response for CR082.

Current Editorial Action Items
?         2006-09-28: Jean-Jacques to factor the "extra" MEPS out of the
                      specification (Part 2) and make a new NOTE (Amy to 
?         2006-10-19: Remove F&P - editors for each Part should make
                      necessary edits.

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/public-ws-semann-comments/2006Oct/0000.html

Jonathan: XMLP is looking into the MTOM description mechanism

<scribe> DONE - contact Coordination Group and move Youenn's proposal to XMLP


Interop event - http://www.w3.org/2006/10/interop2-logistic.html

Jonathan: any questions


Jonathan: will determine the need for con call on a week 2 week basis

opic: MTOM Description

MTOM Description

Philippe summarizes CG discussion on MTOM description

Jonathan: still an open question in the XMLP WG

Philippe: XMLP WG is looking into a policy assertion for describing MTOM
... AXIS has a policy impl but Canon doesn't

Jonathan: synced up with Chris - XMLP had a brief discussion - they are interested and finding it useful - will take a couple of weeks for the XMLP WG
... assertion or extension or both is an open question

[Deferring this discussion until Canon\JJM arrives]

CR011: CR Comment on WSDL Version 2, part 2: Adjuncts

Link to CR011 is http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR011

this is from Mark Nottingham

Mark N didn't accept our resolution (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2006Mar/0019

Mark N is not satisfied with the resolution and would like to move this to the transistion request

Because the WG doesn't have impl proof on HTTP Binding

RESOLUTION: NO Change - park it in the unaccepted list

CR061: service and binding name shown as QNames in example - should be NCNames

Link to CR061 is http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR061

Jeremy points out a remaining bit (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2006Oct/0030

Sounds editorial

But will be removed when we cize F and P

RESOLUTION: non-issue - cos the section will be removed

CR067: {http cookies} REQUIRED?

Link to CR067 is http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR067

Jonathan points out a remaining bit (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2006Oct/0018

Text is still ambiguous - not clear 'what can be used' means - make it clear as suggested in the above e-mail

<plh> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#soap-binding

Philippe - it is not clear where http cookies are allowed

Philippe takes an informal action to write it up

Jonthan's bit is editorial

Resolution: accept Jonathan's proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2006Oct/0018

CR082: Header blocks in wrpc:signature

Link to CR082 is http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR082

[relating back to Jacekk's earlier comments]

Jason's pushback is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2006Oct/0037l

Jacekk: describes a loss of functionality from WSDL 11
... we discussed earlier and this is a piece of missing functionality

Jonathan: one solution is to define header defined parameters for rpc sig

Jacekk: impls are free to do whatever they wish using rpc sig

Jonathan: should we consider this proposal?

Jacekk: doesn't believe that this is useful

Does the primer capture any migration related information?

Philippe: not in the primer

Jonthan: confirms

Jacekk: engage Jason and ask him what he wants
... suggest splitting out rpc sig into a note

RESOLUTION: No change - park it in the unaccepted list
... (Jacekk to) Engage Jason and ask him what he wants

Republication schedule

[WG misses Arthur and JJM]

Need to remove F&P from the core, adjuncts and primer

Jonathan is editing the primer

Jacekk removed F&P from the RDF mapping

Jacekk: but RDF mapping is not ready to go yet
... next transistion for the RDF mapping is a WD

[JJM Arrives]

Sliding back to MTOM description

MTOM Description

Jonathan summarizes one more time

Canon: we need a WSDL extension
... wants the WG to communicate Canon's position to CG

Asir: if Canon is the only company that needs a WSDL extension what is Canon's plan for interop
... or is this primarily for internal purposes (within Canon)

JJM: for internal purpose only

Jonathan: canon is the only one interested in mtom wsdl extension interop
... would Canon's interop needs will be served by a note rather than a REC track doc

another possibility is to have an assertion and make it usable within WSDL 20

JJM: has merits and will consider it

Jonathan: concrete what should we suggest to the CG and XMLP

Philippe: if the XMLP WG doesn't work on a policy assertion, are you interested in developing one here

JJM: yes

Jonathan: would you be willing to work on a mtom description if the XMLP WG is not interested in it

s/a mtom description cap/

no decision yet

<Jonathan> Summary: No firm consensus yet on whether this WG would develop MTOM descriptive capabilities (policy assertion, extension, or both) if the XMLP WG declines to accept this topic.

<Jonathan> ... There is so far a majority willing to adopt this task, but not everyone has determined their position, or made their preferences known, yet.

<Jonathan> ... Canon requires a wsdl extension (policy too is acceptable), and in a timely manner.

[open question is - is this new work in relation to patent policy?]

[Back to Administrivia]

Call next week?

Jonathan: tending to not having a call next week

JJM: prefers not having a call next week

Philippe: some amount of work needs to be done in part 2

JJM: will have done all the outstanding work except one

Jonathan: next call will be two weeks from now
... Jacekk will have RDF mapping ready
... Amy will have MEPs note ready
... SOAP 11 binding doc is ready to go
... Core and Adjuncts pending items will be done in 2 weeks

[Compound question on the floor]

Jonathan summarizes the list of surviving meps

Tony: do we need an implementers call

Jonathan: yes

Philippe: yes

JJM: Youenn and JJM cannot attend

Philippe: lets hold the call and make some progress

RESOLUTION: implementers will continue to meet on a weekly basis

Jonathan: there are 10 registrations for the interop f2f
... XFire folks may show up
... IBM attendees are John and Arthur

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Jonathan to create set of wire level test WSDLs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/26-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2006/10/26 16:24:46 $