[Oops, forgot the attendance :-}] Minutes, 16 Dec 2004 WS Description WG telcon Present: David Booth W3C Glen Daniels Sonic Software Paul Downey British Telecommunications Youenn Fablet Canon Hugo Haas W3C Tom Jordahl Macromedia Anish Karmarkar Oracle Jacek Kopecky DERI Amelia Lewis TIBCO Kevin Canyang Liu SAP Jonathan Marsh Chair (Microsoft) Jeff Mischkinsky Oracle Dale Moberg Cyclone Commerce Jean-Jacques Moreau Canon Arthur Ryman IBM Asir Vedamuthu webMethods Sanjiva Weerawarana IBM Umit Yalcinalp SAP IRC: Bijan Parsia University of Maryland MIND Lab Regrets: Allen Brookes Rogue Wave Software Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems David Orchard BEA Systems Prasad Yendluri webMethods, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Agenda 1. Welcome new member: Michael Liddy of Education.au Ltd. Assign scribe. Lucky minute taker for this week is one of: Amy Lewis, William Vambenepe, Erik Ackerman, Jean-Jacques Moreau, Igor Sedukhin, Jeff Mischkinsky, David Orchard, Asir Vedamuthu, Bijan Parsia, Sanjiva, Tom Jordahl, Hugo Haas Scribe: Tom -------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Approval of minutes: - Dec 9 [.1] [.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Dec/att-0019/2004-12 -02-minutes.html Approved. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Review of Action items [.1]. Editorial actions [.2]. PENDING 2004-04-01: Marsh will get schema tf going. PENDING 2004-09-02: Bijan to create stylesheet to generate a table of components and properties. PENDING 2004-09-16: Editors to move App C to RDF Mapping spec, except the frag-id which will move within media-type reg appendix. PENDING 2004-09-16: Editors to fix paragraph 6-9 of section 2.1.1 moved into 2.1.2 which talks about the syntax. PENDING 2004-09-30: Arthur to add Z notation to Part 1. Discussion with Arthur about Z notation and javascript in a single document [pauld: let them eat Z! one version to rule them all..] Much discussion about how to present the Z notation: inline with Javascript to hide, 2 documents, etc. Expectation is to default to Z notation hidden. This would be the non-normative version. Normative version would have everything w/ no hiding functionality. DONE 2004-10-07: Primer editors to use the new terms "Web service" and "consumer|client". DONE 2004-10-14: Arthur to prototype a javascript implementation and decide on the two doc's vs javascript method later. PENIDNG 2004-10-14: Editors to add a statement like: The Style property may constrain both input and output, however a particular style may constrain in only one direction. In Section 2.4.1.1 of Part 1. (subsumed by LC21 resolution?) PENDING 2004-10-21: Glen to respond to Tim Ewald re: LC9. DONE 2004-10-28: Glen to write up the relation between features and modules for LC18. PENDING 2004-11-09: DBooth and roberto to describe option 2 (remove definition of processor conformance, write up clear guidelines to developers) (LC5f) PENDING 2004-11-09: DaveO to work on text for option 3 (redefining conformance in terms of building the component model) (LC5f) PENDING 2004-11-09: DaveO will recast the @compatibleWith proposal using an extension namespace. (LC54) DONE 2004-11-10: Part 3 Editors to roll in Asir's changes. PENDING 2004-11-10: Sanjiva to write the rationale for rejecting LC75a PENDING 2004-11-10: Glen will post an e-mail describing the compromise proposal on formal objections. DONE 2004-11-10: DBooth will produce text for the spec re: slide 12 of his presentation. PENDING 2004-11-10: Editor remove ambiguity if it exists PENDING 2004-11-10: Sanjiva will write up this proposal and email it to the list as a response to the objection. DONE 2004-11-11: Hugo to update the makefile to generate the spec with Z DROPPED 2004-11-11: Arthur to write up a sample of what a rewritten spec using an infoset-based component model would look like PENDING 2004-11-11: Anish to propose additions to the test suite for the purpose of interoperability testing. DONE 2004-11-11: Hugo to ask the XMLP wg to clarify the issue around the response in the SOAP/HTTP binding (LC50) PENDING 2004-11-11: Editors of part 2 and 3 to add text about WSDLMEP and SOAP mep mapping that points to section 2.3 of part 3 (LC48b) PENDING 2004-11-11: Umit to check on operation@style (LC61a) PENDING 2004-11-18: DBooth to propose text to clarify that a service must implement everything in its description. PENDING 2004-11-18: Mini-task force to propose one or two proposals for the group for LC5f. PENDING 2004-12-02: DBooth to draft note clarifying that (a) optional extension can change the semantics; and (b) that if semantics are going to change at runtime, it should be indicated in the WSDL DONE [.6] 2004-12-03: DBooth will find message for LC 50 DONE [.4, .5] 2004-12-03: Definition of Node still needed Booth vs. Sanjiva PENDING 2004-12-03: Glen and Asir to help craft the specfic text for the editors. PENDING 2004-12-03: Glen to send example on feature stuff for primer PENDING 2004-12-03: Hugo or JMarsh to write up schema group remarks DONE 2004-12-03: Kevin will write up issue that remains DONE 2004-12-03: next week node definition selection!! DONE [.3] 2004-12-03: schedule MTD issues first telcon in Jan [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions [.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/actions.html [.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Dec/0016.html [.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0070.html [.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0072.html [.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0088.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Administrivia a. Jan 19-21 Melbourne, Australia hosted by BEA [.1] Amy: asks if there will be telcon for Australia FTF [Marsh: ACTION: Follow up on telcon for Australia FTF.] b. Mar 3,4? Boston c. Holiday telcon schedule Dec 23rd TF call, Dec 30th cancelled. d. Jan 6th telcon to be devoted to Media Type Description issues. [.2] Jan 6th telcon to be devoted to Media Type Description issues e. Good Standing proposal [.3] Good Standing proposal - JMarsh may have math wrong, but it was an example of what *would* happen Asir: Will the good standing status be visible to members? JMarsh: Would an Excel spreadsheet be OK? ACTION: Marsh to publish spreadsheet with Good Standing calculations. f. Primer Publication [.4] DBooth: the primer seems ready to publish as a draft Concern raised that the Last Call of the spec doesn't match the Primer, which refers to things in the editors draft. In particular the Schema in the editors draft is more up to date. Hugo: I believe we should point to the editors draft of the spec. Discussion on how to indicate to readers which documents to use... [kliu: ACTION: primer editors to add explanatory text and refer to the latest editor's copy of the spec] Arthur: Concerned about the validation of the primer, not willing to raise an objection to prevent publishing Arthur: The validation of the WSDL in the primer. [kliu: ACTION: primer editors to check examples and make sure they are consistent with the latest wsdl2.0 schema] Asir: points out a bad link in the primer. DBooth will address Jmarsh: Any objects to publishing the first draft of the primer? No objections! [sanjiva: Thanks to Kevin and David for the hard work on the primer!] [asir: dbooth, in the informative reference section .. you have a reference to the primer itself] [asir: Thanks to David and Kevin, Good Work!] [.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Nov/0014.html [.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Dec/0016.html [.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Dec/0009.html [.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Dec/0018.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ 5. New (non-LC) Issues. Issues list [.1]. - Media Type tbd [.1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.h tml ------------------------------------------------------------------ 6. Last Call Issues [.1]. Comments list [.2] - TBD [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/ [.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/ JMarsh: a few new issues added ------------------------------------------------------------------ 7. Issue LC21: Multipart Style and {direction}=out [.1] - Hugo requests additional guidance [.2] [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC21 [.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Dec/0013.html Hugo sent Email about another problem with our resolution Hugo: About the use of out-first patterns with the HTTP binding. At the time we said this was possible, but it would need out-of-band info about where to send it. With current text, out-first is not very useful. Do we even want to talk about it? Asir: We don't have to reopen LC21, we could just take care of implmentation details Hugo: Options: 1. Keep decision we made, allow out-first MEPs. Means Request URI is fixed and in WSDL 2. Isn't worth it to have out-first, reverse decision and not allow it 3. We decide we really want it and work out details on how to do it. Hugo: Going to be tough to get interop. [dbooth: TomJ: Not worth having the out-first HTTP. ] Tomj: in favor of removing out-first HTTP - save interop grief. Asir: supports removing it Sanjiva: opposed to out-first binding unless it's usable - remove it. [alewis: agree that out-first is inappropriate for http] [asir: I tracked down this particular decision to item 10 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Oct/0066.html] TomJ: Don't want to *prevent* people from designing their own way of getting out-first ops to work. Hugo: Users can define their own binding. Jacek: We talk about this before - it's allowed and anything to make it work is out of scope Sanjiva: The spec should just talk about the MEPs that work and not preclude others. Glen: Extensibility is the way to go here, if someone puts an out-first operation in their WSDL, they better put some sort of indication in the WSDL as to how to get it to work JMarsh: Removing it completely (option 1): tools would reject the WSDL unless a (probably mandatory) extension told them how things work JMarsh: Reviews the possibilities: remove out-first from HTTP binding, or leave it in and say you must fill in the blanks as to how it works more discussion on how we could get out-first to work [asir: Oh well, we have spent enough time on this !!] DBooth: Proposes to change out spec to say that the HTTP binding supports the in-first MEPs. Other MEPs may be used, but would require an extension to be used [asir: +1 to Jonathan's rephrase] Support for Dave's proposal [GlenD: Other MEPs may be used, but the semantics of their usage must be defined in some way, such as with an extension or Feature.] Talking about wording. [sanjiva: "if some other meps (such as outbound meps) are in use in the interface then some extension may be required to indicate how those work with this binding"] ACTION: Part 3 Editors to update the HTTP binding with one of the above versions of text Call next week will be a Task Force. See you next year! [bijan: Ta] Meeting AdjournedReceived on Thursday, 16 December 2004 22:34:59 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:14:49 GMT