Web Services Description Working Group 2002-09-26 conference call minutes. Attendance Present: David Booth W3C Allen Brookes Rogue Wave Software Glen Daniels Macromedia Youenn Fablet Canon Dietmar Gaertner Software AG Martin Gudgin Microsoft Tom Jordahl Macromedia Jacek Kopecky Systinet Sandeep Kumar Cisco Systems Philippe Le Hégaret W3C Amelia Lewis TIBCO Steve Lind AT&T Kevin Canyang Liu SAP Jonathan Marsh Chair (Microsoft) Dale Moberg Cyclone Commerce Jean-Jacques Moreau Canon Don Mullen Tibco Arthur Ryman IBM Waqar Sadiq Electronic Data Systems Jeffrey Schlimmer Microsoft Igor Sedukhin Computer Associates William Stumbo Xerox Jerry Thrasher Lexmark Steve Tuecke Global Grid Forum William Vambenepe Hewlett-Packa rd (x:47) Sanjiva Weerawarana IBM (x:30) Don Wright Lexmark Joyce Yang Oracle Regrets: Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems Steve Graham Global Grid Forum Jeff Mischkinsky Oracle Adi Sakala IONA Technologies Barbara Zengler DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology ------------------------------------------------------------------- Agenda 1. Assign scribe 2. Approval of minutes of Sept 19 telcon 3. Review of Action items 4. FTF planning 5. Arch harvesting of WSDL. Need reviewers. 6. Requirements 7. New Issues (none) 8. Rationale for Dropping the <soap:body use=...> Attribute 9. BindingType proposal from Kevin 10. A slice at a proposal for SOAP features/properties in WSDL 11. Issue 2: SOAPAction has been deprecated, as of SOAP 1.2 11. Issue 28: transport='uri' [15] Dependent upon Glen's feature/property proposal. 12. HTTP Binding Issues (6a, 41 ) 13. Issue 25: Interaction between W3C XML Schema and SOAP Data Model ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Assign scribe Youenn Fablet ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Approval of minutes of Sept 19 telcon Done ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Review of Action items PENDING 2002-07-21: Don Mullen to write up an issue on making the transport attribute match the SOAP binding framework. PENDING 2002-09-09: Sanjiva to redo part 3.2 of his binding proposal. PENDING 2002-09-09: Gudge to check whether there is already an issue against Part 2: can you define different encodingStyles for different children of soap:Body (message parts). IN PROGRESS 2002-09-10: Steve, William, Arthur, Gudge, Joyce to produce a proposal for portType extensibility. Reword: Steve and Gudge to write up the portType extensibility proposal. PENDING 2002-09-10: Sanjiva to produce a proposal for equivalence of (at least) top-level components in the next couple of weeks. PENDING 2002-09-10: Gudge; jeffsch; roberto et al to write proposal [to remove message and replace with complexType.] IN PROGRESS 2002-09-10: Gudge to provide summary of using xml schema to wrap other type systems at an appropriate level of abstraction. PENDING 2002-09-11: Sanjiva to describe out/out-in for pub-sub. [I think this should be pub-sub _without_ out/out-in.] PENDING 2002-09-11: Jeffrey and Don define TCP binding. PENDING 2002-09-19: Joyce, Sandeep, Igor, Steve T, Sanjiva, Ad i, Roberto, Amy to form a task force to prepare presenation about adding pub/sub in a first class manner to WSDL 1.2. PENDING 2002-09-19: Sanjiva to write a Java binding. PENDING 2002-09-19: Glen to draft SOAP last call comment on why SOAPAction is not a "feature", and request the ability to set arbitrary mime headers. New Actions as of 2002-09-26 Philippe to get Eric's comments Jeffrey to remove the word draft for req125 Jonathan to prepublish the req docs Jacek to make a proposal for better describing the extensibility mechanism to support other languages ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. FTF planning Jonathan: please register to the next F2F no progress on january F2F people think that we should meet at the tech plenary. Will make progress on that ------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Arch harvesting of WSDL. Need reviewers. Jonathan: Any reviewer? My answer is: it looks good Arthur: What is it for? A short summary of WSDL? Jonathan: Yes ???: are the last two points WSDL issues? Jonathan: Maybe, this is paul prescott stuff. Does it belong to WSDL scope? Arthur: it is related to service references. We need a way to describe services that return references to other services Jonathan: already an issue Arthur: It might be the hot WSDL issue in the mind of the Arch group ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Requirements Jonathan: No response from RDF people concerning the semantic web requirement (R120). Then I may be happy to drop this draft requirement Philippe: I take an AI to get Eric's comments. ACTION: philippe to get Eric's comments Jonathan: I will send to XMLP and Arch group before publishing to public. Do not want to go in the publishing process twice Jonathan: what about req125? Reject this req? Jean-Jacques: It is included in SOAP1.2. If we want to fully support it, we should accept this as a requirement ACTION: jeffrey to remove the word draft for req125 ACTION: jonathan to prepublish the req docs ------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. New Issues (none) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Rationale for Dropping the <soap:body use=...> Attribute Jacek: I was an opponent of dropping the use attribute. If we keep the ability to use different schema languages, I have no objection to drop it. If we drop the use attribute, we have 2 options: hack XML Schema or use different schema languages. Sanjiva says that we should keep this feature in WSDL1.2; ok for dropping the use attribute. Jonathan: Is this the only thing to make clear in Arthur's message? Jacek: make clear we are retaining multiple XML Schemas Arthur: also note that messages are replaced by Schemas Jacek: when saying remove messages by schemas, what is "schemas"? Only XML Schema? Arthur: The question is: what is the core binding of WSDL? WS-I recommends use=litteral and have XML Schema. If use=encoded with SOAP encoding, put it in the SOAP binding part. Push the use choice in the SOAP binding Jacek: pb : XMLSchema not good for SOAP encoding structures two ways: mapping from XML Schema to SOAP encoding or allow multiple schema languages which is clearer. XML Schema is made for tree not for other data model. It is hacky to use XML Schema then map it to SOAP encoding. We should allow multiple schema languages at the abstract level. Gudge: point is WS-I can describe all SOAP encoding structures they need with XML Schema Jacek: do they show the mapping? Gudge: no mapping. They describe graphs using XML Schema Jacek: We have a W3C XMLP work effort. Is it possible not to use SOAP encoding with WSDL? Philipe: Yes. XMLP WG will not be surprised Arthur: WS-I does not say we must not use SOAP encoding. WSDL does not restrict what you put on the wire. Steve: Note that RDF may not be described by XML Schema Gudge: they abuse of XML syntax: five different possibilities to describe a graph Steve: Why tying WSDL with XML Schema? Why can't we support Relax NG? Gudge: at now, we support the use of other schema languages Steve: I see some movement to only use XML Schema in WSDL Arthur: the point is: what goes on the SOAP binding. Additional info might be put on the SOAP binding to solve interop problems. But I think XML Schema is sufficient Jacek: if we are sure that the use problem is not related to the use of multiple schema languages, then ok Jonathan: I have difficulties imagine tying WSDL with one version of XML Schema Arthur: Just by producing a new WSDL version for a new XMLSchema version. I prefer unambiguous use of schemas Jacek: agree on unambiguous but using other schemas is not about ambiguousity: it extends WSDL Jonathan: WS-I profile says: use XML SChema1.0 with WSDL. This does not prevent to come up with a more general solution Jonathan: To be agnostic with schemas, we should put qname on all type elements? Gudge: No Jonathan: Who can take up that work for clean up ? Arthur? Arthur: Jacek is the main proponent Jacek: I am on vacation next week. Agree to do that work after ACTION: Make a proposal for better describing the extensibility mechanism to support other languages Jacek: I am ok with Arthur's rational if we can use multiple schema languages. We should extend the rational to say that we allow the use of multiple schema languages. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. BindingType proposal from Kevin Jonathan: no message this week on that subject. IS that because people are afraid of making that change before 1 portType extensibility 2 Glen's proposal 3 a more general change in the binding approach? Jacek: I would mark this proposal at 2.0 material and delay it... Jonathan: there was interest last week in the WG. Do people have questions for Kevin? Sanjiva: hi folks Kevin: I like the idea of delaying this until other questions on binding come up. Jonathan: this should be related to which topic? Gudge: tie it with part2 of the AM Jonathan: have the part2 editors begun works on that? Jeffrey: beginning Jonathan: begin to do stuff on that and let Kevin's proposal dependent on the AM part2 Sanjiva: it has effects on part1 because it is a kind of binding framework Jonathan: It seems to effect also how part2 AM will relate with binding data. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. A slice at a proposal for SO AP features/properties in WSDL Jonathan: Glen, can you make a brief intro? Glen: the idea is to be able to describe features that can be implemented through bindings/modules Jonathan: translate soap features as messaging features? Glen: good question. Jean-Jacques sent comments to me and said it was more general. IMO, it seems more general. It is a good opportunity to move this in the right direction. Jean-Jacques: it is a good proposal. But we may push the envelope: we could describe protocols through features. It is not a lot of effort. Glen: I agree Jean-Jacques: I am ready to spend some time on this Glen: also, there is nothing in the SOAP spec that ties features with SOAP1 Glen: the main point is to say: this concept of security in SSL is the same as the one you implement with SOAP through that mechanism. Jonathan: a problem with example1: feature elements should have the wsdl namespace, not the soap namespace Sanjiva: what is the meaning of the correlation uri for instance? Glen: behind this uri, you describe the native http request/response correlation meaning Jeff: really interesting. I have hard time understanding the implications of the feature mechanism. Alewis: I have been developing materials for XMPL WG like features and MEP. Describe bits as a feature increases dramatically its reusability. Glen: In the SOAP binding Task Force, what a binding could do was a question. We did not want to restrict to HTTP or request/response protocol. Then, we create a correlation feature that HTTP does natively. David: Is it like describing a mechanism for referencing a concept in an ontology? The ability to do that allows reusing it. Jean-Jacques: another feature is the email correlation feature. Jean-Jacques describes the email correlation feature Jean-Jacques: the abstract correlation feature can be implemented via this email feature Glen: an abstract feature can be implemented throu gh a binding or modules. HTTP supports natively the request-response MEP. If you do not use the http protocol, the binding can do specific things to support this mep. Jeff: In the absence of the design that the XMLP WG has done, our work might not be more general than WSDL1.1. It is very important for us to understand this work deeply. Is that fair? Glen: yes Jeff: We should understand it before changing the bindings Glen: We can do the simple stuff Jeff: is this your proposal Glen: yes Jean-Jacques: we need to do something like Glen's proposal to support SOAP1.2 Sandeep: does this mean that to support SOAP1.2, we need to have the SOAP binding at the abstract layer. Glen: In a sense yes. Gudde: we could do this with modular bindings Jeff: then, we will need to write a normative way to describe all combinations of the matrix Jonathan: Better for interop to say: implement this cell. Jonathan: another thing in your proposal glen: the c orrelation module was required but not the enc module. What is the purpose of describing features that are available but not required Glen: It is to say that these modules are available. By picking values in the WSDL file, you can know precisely how to use a feature. Jonathan: what is the purpose of saying that you can use an unlisted module. Glen: On the Internet, you can send whatever message you want. We are not in a world where everything will be described in WSDL. No reason to use only described features. Sanjiva: somebody has to know what modules to use whether described in WSDL or in a book. Alewis: one can use available features not published? Glen. Yes. It seems an unnecessary constraint to disallow this. Jonathan: So, where are we going with this? Glen: it is connected to other issues like use the same uri as in the SOAP framework Sanjiva: I want to understand what that means to us Glen: we must describe needed info, like webm ethods or meps. Then the matter is to define the framework that will do that. Jonathan: Should I put this at the CG level or is it premature? Glen: why not? Jonathan: no objection? Jonathan: net step is to do homework on this topic and bring questions back to Glen and Jean-Jacques. Jonathan: glen, you said that this proposal was a sketch. What is the next step? Glen: describing the general pattern <scribe>???</scribe> Jonathan: We should also describe how this would affect the AM part1 Glen: I will try -------------------------------------------------------------------- Call Adjourned -------------------------------------------------------------------- Scribe: Youenn FabletReceived on Monday, 30 September 2002 03:27:03 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:14:29 GMT