WS Description WG telcon

<scribe> SCRIBE: gpilz

Review of Action items [.1].

?         2006-09-21: Jonathan to check periodically that SPARQL has 
                      added schemaLocation.
?         2007-01-04: Paul to report back on which test cases in the 
                      WSDL test suite fail the basic patterns, with
                      suggestions on how to address the issues.
DONE [.3] 2007-04-21: Charlton to look at resolution of WSDL 1.1 element 
                      identifiers resolutions.
DONE [.2] 2007-04-19: Jonathan to respond to issue 4458.

Current Editorial Action Items
?         2007-03-15: Philippe to update the namespace documents upon PR
                      pub.
DONE      2007-04-19: Philippe to double check
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2007Mar/0072.html
DONE      2007-04-19: Philippe to fix the references in all three docs.

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2007Apr/0001.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2007Apr/0011.html
    

action items

Jonathan: some editorial action items for Phillipe

Phillipe: All of them are closed

<plh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2007Apr/0070.html

Jonathan: Lets talk about "wsdl20" token for the dated versions of the schemas

Phillipe: What do people want?

Jonathan: I thought the dated versions were supposed to be stable?

Phillipe: I'm not sure

Jonathan: It seems strange to hacve '20' in the dated versions but not the latest versions . . .

Tony: I don't like the 'wsdl20'; I don't mind 'wsdl2'

Phillipe: Lets drop '20' or '2' etc.
... Just 'wsdl'

Jonathan: That would be great

Tony: That would be consistent as well

RESOLUTION: Phillipe to add the above to existing action item

bug 4431

<plh> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4431

Phillipe: (requests some clarification)

bug 4491

Jonathan: (describes bug)
... It's not clear to me how critical this is going to be?
... Thoughts?

Phillipe: Updating the spec is the easy part; we'd have to update all the tests as well.

Tony: I can see someone doing this for a test but not in real life

All: (back and forth on details - is this runtime behavior or something that should be described?)

Jonathan: I'm not hearing anybody who thinks this is obviously necessary

Tony: If its going to hold things up, sorry, its too late

Jonathan: Yeah, but you could make the case that this is really important

Phillipe: Tell me again what breaks if we don't have this?

Jonathan: I'm not sure . . .
... I don't there's anything in WSDL or anywhere else that tells you you should fault if you get a 201 back instead of a 200

Tony: You may get a fault you hadn't thought of

Jonathan: We could just fall back on HTTP and consider it a fault if you get a 4xx

Phillipe: We have an in/out operation, what do we expect currently?

All: (not sure)

Phillipe: That's my point. If we're going to get into this, we'll end up describing everything about the HTTP layer

Jean-Jacques: you can have faults without bodies and you need a way to differentiate faults from normal responses
... It seems that we don't have enough reasoning as to why we would need this feature . . .

Jonathan: Is it worth going back to PR?

Tony: This will be the last time we could add this for quite a while

All: (discussion of schedule impacts)

RESOLUTION: close with no action

editorial issues

<Jonathan> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4492

Jonathan: 4492

RESOLUTION: accept proposal

4493

RESOLUTION: accept proposal

review examples of WSDL 2.0 descriptions for existing HTTP

Jonathan: (summary - no joy here)
... Phillipe, what do you think we need to show the Director? WSDL or interaction?

Phillipe: Both. We should at least show him the WSDL does work . .

Jonathan & Phillipe: (discussion of logistics around getting to PR)

Jonathan: Since we have to wait for 2 weeks anyway, should we just keep things open in case we find more typos, etc.?

Phillipe: No objections to that . . .

Jonathan: This also gives me time to respond to all the comments . . .

Phillipe: The editorial actions are all done

Jonathan: (proposes that we don't go to PR today)
... How long between voting to go to PR and getting the PR docs published?

Phillipe: A week (probably)

Jonathan: Plan of record is that we will vote to go to PR in 2 weeks.

WSDL WG Comments on WSDL 1.1 Element Identifiers

Charlton: (summarizes)

Jonathan: I'll see if there is a response that I need to make . . .

Charlton: I need to let them know whether the WG accepts these resolutions

future telcons

Jonathan: No call next week. Next call in two weeks: 2007-05-10