Re: Minutes, 14 Sep 2006 WS Description WG telcon

Jonathan,

Although it's not recorded in the minutes, I sent regrets for 
yesterday's call on 8/30.

Thanks,
Roberto

Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> Enclosed.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> W3C <http://www.w3.org/>
> 
> 
>   Web Services Description WG meeting
>   14 Sep 2006
> 
> Agenda <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Sep/0012.html>
> 
> See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-irc>
> 
> 
>     Attendees
> 
> Present
>     Charlton Baretto, Adobe Systems
>     Allen Brookes, Rogue Wave Software
>     Eran Chinthaka, WSO2
>     Glen Daniels, Sonic Software
>     Paul Downey, British Telecommunications
>     Youenn Fablet, Canon
>     Anish Karmarkar, Oracle
>     Amelia Lewis, TIBCO
>     Philippe Le Hegaret, W3C
>     Jonathan Marsh, Co-chair/Microsoft
>     Jean-Jacques Moreau, Canon
>     Vivek Pandey, Sun Microsystems
>     Gilbert Pilz, BEA Systems
>     Tony Rogers, Co-chair/Computer Associates
>     Arthur Ryman, IBM
> Regrets
>     Tom Jordahl, Adobe Systems
> Chair
>     Tony, Jonathan
> Scribe
>     Philippe
> 
> 
>     Contents
> 
>     * Topics <#agenda>
>          1. Previous minutes <#item01>
>          2. Action items <#item02>
>          3. Administrivia <#item03>
>          4. features and Properties at risk <#item04>
>          5. HTTP binding at risk <#item05>
>          6. MEPs at risk <#item06>
>          7. Issue CR079: Fragment identifier syntax not XPointer
>             Framework-compatible <#item07>
>     * Summary of Action Items <#ActionSummary>
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
>       Previous minutes
> 
> -> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Sep/att-0010/20060907-ws-desc-minutes.html 
> Previous minutes
> 
> Tony: any objection to the previous minutes?
> 
> Resolution: minutes approved
> 
> 
>       Action items
> 
> <scribe> *ACTION:* *[PENDING]* 2006-03-30: Marsh to make XSLT 
> improvements for RDF publication. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
> 
> <scribe> *ACTION:* *[PENDING]* 2006-06-29: Philippe to write up 
> recommended text to clarify the issue in CR53. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
> 
> <scribe> *ACTION:* *[PENDING]* 2006-07-06: Glen to contribute some 
> extension test cases. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
> 
> (Glen is attending the Policy f2f meeting)
> 
> <scribe> *ACTION:* *[PENDING]* 2006-07-13: Roberto to produce an updated 
> proposal for CR044. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
> 
> <scribe> *ACTION:* *[PENDING]* 2006-07-20: Arthur to update "Proposed 
> Part 1 Text for REQUIRED Extension Properties". [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]
> 
> Arthur: link to this action item?
> 
> Jonathan: look at the minutes. there is a link to them from the home page
> 
> <scribe> *ACTION:* *[PENDING]* 2006-09-07: Marsh to propose workarounds 
> for CR78. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action06]
> 
> 
>       Administrivia
> 
> Jonathan: Sept 28th will be about RDF Mapping issues
> ... we'll also try to do other business as well on that day
> 
> Tony: we also have questions from the editors.
> 
> Jonathan: thanks to Jean-Jacques for catching up. would like to refresh 
> drafts at the end of september
> 
> 
>         CR026 <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR026>
> 
> Jean-Jacques: the commentator thought the text was clear enough. When I 
> tried to change the text, I realize that the case was covered. Maybe we 
> changed the text since then.
> 
> Arthur: it used to be "should" instead of "SHOULD"
> ... I was wondering it should be a MUST or a MUST
> ... it struck me as being inconsistent
> 
> Jean-Jacques: not sure if we can impose a MUST on the SOAP side
> 
> Arthur: if the WSDL sayd mustUnderstand="true", then it MUST be there at 
> the SOAP level
> 
> Jonathan: looks like we need to reopen this issue
> 
> Arthur: the proposed fixed was to strengthen it. I believe it ought to 
> be a MUST
> 
> Jean-Jacques: and the group agreed to clarify the SOAP level
> 
> Resolution: CR26: s/SHOULD/MUST/
> 
> *ACTION:* Jonathan to update the issues list on CR26 [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action07]
> 
> *ACTION:* JJM to update the draft with new CR26 resolution [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action08]
> 
> 
>         CR041 <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR041>
> 
> Jean-Jacques: Isn't this covered already by the last paragraph of 6.5.2?
> 
>     It is an ERROR for a Binding Message Reference or a Binding Fault
>     component's {http headers} property to contain multiple HTTP Header
>     components with the same {name} property.
> 
> Jonathan: so it is placed in a less visible spot?
> ... Arthur was expecting to see the information. Did he miss it or are 
> we inconsistent in the document?
> 
> Tony: Arthur commented on 6.5.6, and the response from JJM is in 6.5.2
> 
> Arthur: maybe I was reading in the description of the http header component
> ... the test is clear. I thought we agreed not to have an error, just 
> "not valid"
> ... seems fine
> 
> Resolution: drop the editors action item on cr41
> 
> 
>         CR057 <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR057>
> 
> Jean-jacques: It looks to me like an xs:string already. (It's "type" 
> which Is an xs:QName.)
> 
>     "{name} REQUIRED. A xs:string whose pattern facet is..."
> 
> Jonathan: in 6.5.4, in the example, the name attribute has a qname
> 
> <Arthur> <whttp:header name="xs:QName" type="xs:QName"
> 
> <Arthur> required="xs:boolean"? >
> 
> Jonathan: it is just in the pseudo syntax
> 
> <Arthur> here is ed copy:
> 
> <Arthur> <whttp:header name="xs:string" type="xs:QName"
> 
> <Arthur> required="xs:boolean"? >
> 
> Arthur: the editors copy seems correct
> 
> Resolution: close action item linked to cr57
> 
> 
>       features and Properties at risk
> 
> Jonathan: we're missing Roberto and Glen
> ... I've got requests to look at the features/properties again. The 
> official state is that we had two objections 
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/07/objections.html> about them: remove 
> them, add compositors
> ... at this point, Sonic is the only one left on "add compositors"
> ... the Director looked at those objections and disposed them. We did 
> end up marking them at risk. The creation of WS-Policy is adding new 
> information.
> 
> Jonathan: we also talked about trying to collect more evidence about 
> their use
> ... everybody probably has a good idea now how they will use features 
> and properties and policy
> ... Canon expressed in the past to have a way to specify MTOM without 
> engaging a policy engine
> ... we'll wait before making a decision. any comments at this point?
> 
> Arthur: giving the progress on WS-Policy and the almost withdraw of the 
> compositors objection, it seems that features and properties are 
> superceded by WS-Policy. It's now confusing to people
> ... it complicates the spec
> ... given that Policy is in W3C and is richer
> 
> ... given the current WS-Policy Attachment for WSDL 2.0 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0037.html>
> ... let's drop them
> 
> Paul: I've been very careful in the past about this. Now, we see 
> features and properties as competes with W3C WS-Policy and don't see a 
> marketplace for features and properties
> ... we spent hours on this
> ... it's historical interest at this point
> 
> Anish: agree with the sentiment expressed. editors, how much work is 
> involved in removing features and properties from the draft?
> ... Roberto said in the past it wouldn't be a trivial task
> 
> Arthur: I volunteer to remove them from part 1
> 
> Amy: one of the points that made in comparing features and properties 
> and policy, features and properties has a more strictly defined syntax, 
> so Glen would argue that policy might not fully supercede features and 
> properties. However, if that is the case, it ought to be a suggestion 
> made to the policy WG.
> 
> <Arthur> +1 to asking WS-Policy WG to consider current design of 
> features and properties
> 
> Amy: from our prospective, TIBCO agree with the other commenters. there 
> is not a good case to keep features and properties. we should let it go
> 
> <charlton> +1 to that
> 
> <charlton> (+1 tp having WS-Policy consider current design of features 
> and properties - in particular features which features and properties 
> handles well which are not yet handled in Policy)
> 
> Youenn: Agree with Paul, let them go. We want to have support for simple 
> things like MTOM without engaging policy. Policy is too complex for our 
> use case. One solution is unable SOAP modules to refer to SOAP features.
> ... for example, <soap:module ref="...MTOM"/>, even if it is not 
> strictly speaking a SOAP module
> ... this is one proposed compromised. MTOM is an important use case for 
> us. Maybe we would have pushed to have a dedicated syntax for MTOM
> 
> Arthur: another point, we will have a transitional period between WSDL 
> 1.1 and WSDL 2.0, and WS-Policy works with both. We'll simplify the 
> migration
> 
> Jonathan: if we do make a change to the spec and pull out something at 
> risk, what about our interop schedule?
> ... if we decide to remove features and properties (or MEPs), I don't 
> think we need to go back to last call
> ... we can refresh our CR and I don't think it will have a huge impact 
> on our CR progress
> 
> plh f&p and mep were marked at risk, so no need to move back to LC. 
> earlier, the director was unsure about the impact on the rest of the 
> spec. if no impact, no need to go to LC. Youenn, why not create our own 
> extension for MTOM today?
> 
> Youenn: a specific MTOM extension does not have the same scope.
> 
> <Arthur> MTOM should be included or enabled by the SOAP binding in Part 2
> 
> Youenn: it's possible to have such as an extension to MTOM
> 
> Jonathan: you want something in the REC document for MTOM?
> 
> Youenn: we had this capability with features and properties, we are 
> reluctant to loose it
> 
> <Arthur> note that features and properties enables MTOM but you'd still 
> need a spec for it
> 
> Jonathan: MTOM was still an extension even with features and properties, 
> it didn't provide guarantee
> 
> <pauld> a MTOM extension for WSDL 1.1/2.0 sounds like a good topic for a 
> member submission
> 
> <Arthur> btw, removing features and properties may improve the schedule
> 
> Charlton: I don't see what impact on the schedule it will have. I'm not 
> aware of features and properties implementations
> 
> Youenn: our implementation have support for features and properties. 
> Don't know about Woden. We could of course remove them
> 
> <pauld> less is more, we'll ship earlier without having to process test 
> cases, comments and errata on features and properties, especially the 
> problems we've had with inheritence
> 
> Arthur: Woden support features and properties, ie it is parsing them, 
> but it's a little problematic: we store as a DOM element
> ... but the composition rules were also unclear
> 
> Youenn: our implementation is also partial
> 
> Jean-Jacques: if we were to remove features and properties, would it 
> possible to have something else instead without going back to last call?
> 
> Jonathan: Youenn proposed changing the prose around the soap:module 
> description. the difference between modules and features is fuzzy to me. 
> An other possibility would be an extension attribut
> ... one thing that would be great would be to have a proposal on the 
> mailing list
> 
> Youenn: we don't want to go back to LC!
> 
> <Arthur> -1 to another LC
> 
> Jonathan: if we go back to LC, will that be the end of the world? We 
> look at 6/8 weeks before going back to CR, the schedule is not blocking 
> us from moving out of CR. So I'm optimistic even if we go back to LC
> 
> <pauld> with our testing and implementations, could we go from LC to PR?
> 
> Jonathan: we might even skip going to CR and go directly to PR
> 
> Philippe: I don't think we can add MTOM as a WSDL extension and move 
> forward, The WS-Policy WG might have a say in this
> 
> [Glen joins the call and Jonathan summarizes the situation]
> 
> Glen: I have nothing to add
> ... we certainly are not going to stay in the way. We would pull out of 
> the "add compositors" objection
> ... the objection is still somewhat valid, but we're not going to stay 
> in the way
> 
> 
>       HTTP binding at risk
> 
> Jonathan: this is not marked at risk.
> ... removing that would be more problematic
> 
> Arthur: Woden builds the components, but Axis 2 doesn't do anything with 
> those
> 
> <pauld> "Serialization of the instance data in parts of the HTTP request 
> IRI" is at risk in Part 2 as are "the Robust In-Only, In-Optional-Out, 
> Out-Only, Robust Out-Only, Out-In, Out-Optional-In message exchange pattern"
> 
> Arthur: HTTP binding is useful for doing REST style, I wouldn't like to 
> see it go
> 
> <charlton> +1 to Arthur - I would prefer not to see HTTP Binding removed 
> for the same reasons
> 
> Tony: Mark Nottingham raised a comment against it
> 
> Jonathan: and Microsoft sent a last call comment saying we wouldn't 
> implement it
> 
> <chinthaka> We do have an implementation in Axis2 based on HTTP binding 
> but we haven't integrated that with Woden for stub generation so +1 to 
> Arthur, as we see lots and lots of users of Axis2 interested in our REST 
> impl based on HTTP Binding rules
> 
> Youenn: we don't have support to serialize HTTP messages. We would 
> prefer to have it in the specification and not have an additional LC.
> 
> Chinthaka: Axis2 does implement HTTP binding and lots of people are 
> interested in this.
> ... especially for RESTful style of interaction
> 
> <pauld> sees more benefit in resource centric approaches such as WADL 
> for REST; WSDL 2.0 could be useful for people interested in POX
> 
> plh: I don't know what would be the position of W3C at this time. Yy 
> own, personnal feeling is that we should remove the HTTP binding, since 
> WSDL isn't the best to represent REST applications anyway. I do 
> understand however why people are interested in our current HTTP binding 
> since they don't have anything else around. I'd rather a resource 
> centric approach however
> 
> Jonathan: but you would loose the capability to bind your service to 
> SOAP and HTTP at the same time without the WSDL HTTP binding. WSDL and 
> Resource-centric approach have a place out there.
> 
> Philippe: correct.
> 
> Arthur: Web Services are already getting complicated. we prefer to have 
> a reduced number of specs and keep it in WSDL.
> 
> Jonathan: certainly not have strong support to remove it at this point
> 
> 
>       MEPs at risk
> 
> Jonathan: we only have In-Out, In-Only, and Robust-In-Only implemented. 
> The other ones could be cut and putted into a Note
> ... specifically In-Optional-Out, Out-Only, Robust Out-Only, Out-In, 
> Out-Optional-In
> 
> Amy: it wasn't only about the existing bindings.
> 
> Jonathan: do you have such a binding?
> 
> Amy: can't talk about it, but it is worthwhile to mention that we didn't 
> put those extra MEPs for the SOAP/HTTP bindings.
> 
> Jonathan: do we need to go on a search now?
> 
> Amy: can we ask WG Members to bring search results by next week?
> 
> Jonathan: yes
> 
> Tony: I'm in favor of getting rid of MEPs that aren't used
> 
> Jean-Jacques: I don't remember what the tests for MEPs are. Do we have any?
> 
> Arthur: for Woden, there are just IRIs.
> ... we don't have enforcement for the moment.
> 
> Jean-Jacques: what did we agree to check? plan to compare the runtime?
> 
> Arthur: we do it for SOAP in a limited way
> ... between Canon and Axis2
> 
> Jonathan: might be hard to test MEPs at the runtime
> 
> Jean-Jacques: Canon will not add more MEPs to its implementation
> 
> Philippe: propose that unused meps be moved to a note, which can then be 
> referenced by other specifications since they are yet unsupported by the 
> SOAP/HTTP bindings. I don't like to recommend MEPs that can't be used by 
> just reading the WSDL 2.0 specification.
> 
> Amy: the use case that I know of don't include all of the MEPs, but for 
> the ones that I do know , having a Note is acceptable
> ... are they normative as they stand? Not sure if there is a meaning in 
> having them normative anyway. I *think* we can support a Note but need 
> to check
> 
> Jonathan: let's make a call for usage of MEPs
> 
> *ACTION:* ALL to come back with MEP usage (specs?) by next week 
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action09]
> 
> 
>       Issue CR079: Fragment identifier syntax not XPointer
>       Framework-compatible
> 
> <TonyR> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR079
> 
> Jonathan: a small tweak would enable us to be fully compatible with XPointer
> ... so far, we allow only a WSDL 2.0 XPointer part, which is against 
> XPointer. Moving the wording would resolve the issue. [...]
> 
> <TonyR> *ACTION:* Jonathan to separate the canonicalisation from CR079 
> as a separate issue [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action10]
> 
> Resolution: 79 is closed by adopting the proposal
> 
> 
>     Summary of Action Items
> 
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* ALL to come back with MEP usage (specs?) by next week 
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action09]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* JJM to update the draft with new CR26 resolution 
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action08]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Jonathan to separate the canonicalisation from CR079 
> as a separate issue [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action10]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Jonathan to update the issues list on CR26 [recorded 
> in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action07]
>  
> *[PENDING]* *ACTION:* 2006-03-30: Marsh to make XSLT improvements for 
> RDF publication. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
> *[PENDING]* *ACTION:* 2006-06-29: Philippe to write up recommended text 
> to clarify the issue in CR53. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
> *[PENDING]* *ACTION:* 2006-07-06: Glen to contribute some extension test 
> cases. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
> *[PENDING]* *ACTION:* 2006-07-13: Roberto to produce an updated proposal 
> for CR044. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
> *[PENDING]* *ACTION:* 2006-07-20: Arthur to update "Proposed Part 1 Text 
> for REQUIRED Extension Properties". [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]
> *[PENDING]* *ACTION:* 2006-09-07: Marsh to propose workarounds for CR78. 
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action06]
>  
> [End of minutes]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl 
> <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm> version 
> 1.127 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>)
> $Date: 2006/09/14 18:48:21 $
>

Received on Friday, 15 September 2006 18:35:31 UTC