- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: 10 Apr 2003 14:01:45 -0400
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1049997704.1011.35.camel@jfouffa.w3.org>
Participants Mike Ballantyne Electronic Data Systems Lily Liu webMethods Jeff Mischkinsky Oracle Kevin Canyang Liu SAP David Booth W3C Allen Brookes Rogue Wave Software Youenn Fablet Canon Tom Jordahl Macromedia Philippe Le H馮aret W3C, chair Amelia Lewis TIBCO Steve Lind AT&T Ingo Melzer DaimlerChrysler Dale Moberg Cyclone Commerce Arthur Ryman IBM, scribe Jeffrey Schlimmer Microsoft William Vambenepe Hewlett-Packard Prasad Yendluri webMethods, Inc. Jacek Kopecky Systinet Jerry Thrasher Lexmark Martin Gudgin Microsoft Erik Ackerman Lexmark Jean-Jacques Moreau Canon Steven White SeeBeyond Umit Yalcinalp Oracle Sanjiva Weerawarana IBM (12:05) Regrets: Glen Daniels Macromedia Sandeep Kumar Cisco Systems Dietmar Gaertner Software AG Igor Sedukhin Computer Associates Jonathan Marsh Microsoft Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems 1 Assign scribe: Arthur Ryman 2. Approval of minutes of April 3 telcon David: the title of the minutes is not really appropriate... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Apr/att-0019/20030403.irc.log.html Minutes approved. 3. Review of Action items [.1]. ? 2003年01月21日: Roberto and gudge to create a branch and work up a binding proposal based on referencing type systems directly from operation components. (Umit's example, Sanjiva's example, WSDL 1.1 example, and others.) ? 2003年02月27日: Sanjiva to send summary of one-portType-per-service issue. ? 2003年03月04日: Editors to discuss markup for testable assertions in the spec and come back with a strategy. ? 2003年03月04日: Jonathan to recruit a QA contact for the WG. ? 2003年03月04日: Jonathan to recruit a test contact for the WG. PENDING 2003年03月13日: Editors will find part 2 issues to dispatch easily next telcon. DONE [.5] 2003年03月13日: Philippe will make a proposal concerning issue 28 using features and properties. DONE [.2] 2003年03月13日: GlenD to propose a Property representation of SOAP action parameter of application/soap+xml type ? 2003年03月13日: Don will write a proposal for annotating schema with part information. ? 2003年03月27日: Jonathan will follow-up with editors to figure out how to improve the prose of the spec to be aligned with schema. PENDING 2003年03月27日: Philippe write up a proposal for embedding bindary data types in schema PENDING 2003年04月03日: Arthur to bring discussion to group in two weeks (more or less) for solutions to R085 PENDING 2003年04月03日: Arthur to coordinate work on WSDL validator Arthur: IBM looked at W3C Sofware license terms: so far looks good. Next step is to put things in place within IBM. ? 2003年04月03日: Editors to include normative schema language in spec (conformance section?); schema to be separate, in TR space. PENDING 2003年04月03日: Jonathan to respond to OWL with "no plans to review, no resources, little knowledge of why requested". DONE [.3] 2003年04月03日: Philippe to bring proposal to attention of M Baker, P Prescod, R Costello, forward responses to group DONE [.4] 2003年04月03日: Philippe to supply some example syntax for HTTP binding proposal. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Administrivia a. May FTF [.1]. Registration [.2] closes on Apr 15th. Dead line for hotel is May 1st. b. Sept FTF (looking for West Coast host). <unknown> c. Usage Scenarios [.3]. Jonathan's still pretending to track this. <unknown> d. QA contact, test lead recruitment. <unknown> e. TF status MEP TF: David: good progress with Amy this week. Hope will be able to make progress next week with Gudge. Amy will try to get Don to join. FnP TF: <glen sent regrets> f. XML Schema 1.0 Second Edition review [.4] Philippe: We may want to provide input on XML Schema 1.0 Second Edition. Gudge: Nothing in it will adversely affect WSDL. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 5. New Issues. Merged issues list [.1]. - none -------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Issue 2: SOAPAction has been deprecated, as of SOAP 1.2 [.1]. Jean-Jacques proposal at [.2]. Jacek's addendum at [.3]. proposal from Glen at [.4]. Topic: Property-based action syntax Jean-Jacques: Update on SOAP 1.2. There is a URI for action. + the following fixes in a bug in Glen's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Apr/0022.html Tom: We shouldn't remove it since it is in WSDL 1.1 since new property syntax is complex Amy: Disagree. Shouldn't make HTTP a special case. Tom: OK to do this both ways. Old way is "syntactic sugar". Philippe: What do we gain by having a property syntax? Amy: consistency Jean-Jacques: It is possible to automatically transform the WSDL 1.1 syntax into the proposed PnF syntax pro - consistency, con - ease of migration from WSDL 1.1 Jeffrey: good idea not to force change to existing, working syntax, but also good to move forward Tom: tools help authoring process but developers still need to read WSDL to understand problems, e.g. in code generation from WSDL2Java. PnF is more consistent syntax but requires knowledge of many URIs Jacek: SOAPAction is a candidate for special treatment Jean-Jacques: Web-Method is also likely to have to be represented as a feature Philippe: strawpoll: Choice 1: Keep WSDL 1.1 syntax Choice 2: use PnF Choice 3: use WSDL 1.1 and PnF X - William A - Mike A - Kevin A - David A - Philippe A - SteveL A - Dale A - Prasad A - SteveW 1 - Tom 1 - Arthur 1 or 2 - Umit 1 or 2 - JeffM 2 - Youenn 2 - Ingo 2 - Jacek 2 - Jerry 2 - Jean-Jacques 2 or 3 - Amy 3 - Lily 3 - Allen Brookes 3 - JeffreyS 3 - Martin 3 - Erick A - 8 1 - 4 2 - 8 3 - 6 Philippe: no decision this week. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. BindingType proposal from Kevin [.1]. Updated proposal at [.2]. Topic: BindingType proposal Kevin: Idea is to separate out binding detail into a separate construct so it can be reused. syntax of binding and interface has stabilized so let's reopen the discussion now. Here an updated proposal: <bindingDetail name = "ncname" target = "binding|operation|message" ...>* <!-- target attribute specifies where the details can be applied in binding construct --> <wsdl:documentation .... /> ? <!-- binding details --> </bindingDetail> <binding name="ncname" interface = "qname" detail = "list of qnames" ...>* <!-- the detail attribute may be a list of qnames, if conflicts present , the first in the list takes preference --> <wsdl:documentation .... /> ? <operation name="ncname" detail = "list of qnames"? ...>* <!-- if the detail attribute is not provided, it gets its value from its parent. same below --> <wsdl:documentation .... /> ? <input name="ncname"? detail = "list of qnames"? ... >? <wsdl:documentation .... /> ? </input> <output name="ncname"? detail = "list of qnames"? ...>? <wsdl:documentation .... /> ? </output> <fault name="ncname"? detail = "list of qnames"? ...>* <wsdl:documentation .... /> ? </fault> </operation> </binding> Gudge: Does this proposal incorporate the notion of layering, e.g. defering detail. First define the use of SOAP and then reuse it HTTP and SMTP for example? Kevin: No. Kevin: the bindingdetail is required and is the only place you can specify binding. you must reference a bindingdetail from a binding. JacekK: compare with Sanjiva's proposal. Kevin's is more reusable but more complex than Sanjiva's, so let's revisit Sanjiva's: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/att-0117/01-bindings-2002年07月24日.html [Jacek presents Sanjiva's proposal] Kevin: Is binding reusability worth the extra complexity Tom: Reusability of binding details is less of a problem now that we can "hoist" binding details - this reduces the amount of repetition Philippe: so we have 3 "proposals": Kevin, Sanjiva, and Tom. Tom's one doesn't preclude others though. JacekK: pls clarify Tom's proposal Tom: we now allow hoisting details, e.g. operation detail can be hoisted to the interface, so there is no repetition within a binding, but also no reuse across bindings [Sanjiva joins the call] Sanjiva: hoisting eliminates a lot of redundancy. providing defaults for binding details would be a simplification. Another possible simplification: if its a one-off binding, inline it inside the <port> itself and avoid creating a named binding. That combined with defaulting to doc/lit (er, I mean rpc/encoded ;-)) would go a long way to reducing WSDL doc size Philippe: close current discussion, put back on agenda next week including Sanjiva's previous proposal and the idea of providing defaults for bindings Gudge: wasn't sanjiva's previous proposal tied in with serviceType? Sanjiva: yes it was .. I just opened it up and its quite different. It was focused on creating reusable bindings. Umit: two issues: reusability and conciseness Jeffrey: Attribute roll-up (old) and defaults (new) are related to conciseness? ACTION: Sanjiva to rewrite his proposal on bindings -------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Issue 6e [.1] - Arthur's proposal on URL replacement [.2]. Plan to do the obvious cleanup suggested by Arthur, and fork the rest into an R85 solution. [pending R85] -------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. Issues 53-55 [.1] - Philippe's proposal for HTTP binding [.2]. Philippe: Not enough time for adequate review. defer to next week. Sanjiva: extend replacement to SOAP Action URI [No takers to write a proposal to extend URLReplacement to SOAPAction URI. the SOAPAction idea is tied into the binding defaults so sanjiva will address this at his discretion] [meeting adjourned. Don't forget to register for May f2f.]
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2003 14:01:46 UTC