- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: 2004年2月25日 10:13:59 -0800
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA202B5331B@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Minutes: Web Services Description WG 19 February 2004 Present: Erik Ackerman Lexmark David Booth W3C Allen Brookes Rogue Wave Software Paul Downey British Telecommunications Youenn Fablet Canon Martin Gudgin Microsoft Hugo Haas W3C Tom Jordahl Macromedia Jacek Kopecky Systinet Sandeep Kumar Cisco Systems Kevin Canyang Liu SAP Jonathan Marsh Chair (Microsoft) Dale Moberg Cyclone Commerce Jean-Jacques Moreau Canon Bijan Parsia University of Maryland MIND Lab Arthur Ryman IBM Adi Sakala IONA Technologies Igor Sedukhin Computer Associates William Vambenepe Hewlett-Packard Asir Vedamuthu webMethods Sanjiva Weerawarana IBM Umit Yalcinalp Oracle Prasad Yendluri webMethods, Inc. Regrets: Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems Glen Daniels Sonic Software Amelia Lewis TIBCO Ingo Melzer DaimlerChrysler David Orchard BEA Systems Jeffrey Schlimmer Microsoft Jerry Thrasher Lexmark -------------------------------------------------------------------- Agenda 1. Assign scribe. Lucky minute taker for this week is: Igor Sedukhin (fallbacks: Jeffrey Schlimmer, Dietmar Gaertner, Umit Yalcinalp, Jean-Jacques Moreau, Sanjiva Weerawarana, Youenn Fablet, David Orchard) Scribe: Jean-Jacques Moreau. IRC: http://www.w3.org/2004/02/19-ws-desc-irc -------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Approval of minutes: - Jan 22nd telcon [.1] - Jan 28-30 FTF [.2, .3, .4] and Summary [.5] - Feb 5th telcon [.6] - Feb 12th telcon [.7] All minutes approved. [.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0061.html [.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0010.html [.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0012.html [.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0011.html [.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0013.html [.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/att-0035/040205- ws-desc-irc.htm [.7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0076.html -------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Review of Action items [.1]. PENDING 2003年09月18日: Marsh to review the QA operational guidelines. PENDING 2004年01月08日: Pauld to write up examples of schemas for the Primer. PENDING 2004年01月28日: Philippe and JMarsh will look at the ipr for test suite. DUE FTF 2004年01月28日: Sanjiva to consistify the @name attributes. DUE FTF 2004年01月29日: David Booth to suggest improvements to the spec clarifying "WSDL processor". PENDING [.2] 2004年01月30日: DaveO to write up a proposal for augmenting schema information to enable versioned data. DONE [.3] 2004年01月30日: DavidO to write request to schema group to address the issue of schema not supporting ignoring extended content. DUE FTF 2004年01月30日: Umit to write a proposal on @wsdlLocation PENDING 2004年01月30日: Jonathan to investigate typo in last f2f meeting on _S_erviceType. REASSIGNED TO HUGO 2004年01月30日: Hugo to draft a note for the group around safe operations. DONE [.4] 2004年02月12日: Philippe to check on teleconference facilities for Tech Plenary f2f. DONE [.5] 2004年02月12日: Editors to update messageReference -> label in part 2 as well. DONE [.6] 2004年02月12日: Issue list editor to make this a Part III issue. Jonathan took up issues list editing PENDING 2004年02月12日: DaveO to produce a refined proposal for Asynch HTTP binding addressing the concerns of folks that object to leaving replyTo info out of WSDL. DUE FTF 2004年02月12日: Umit to update OperationName proposal to make clear that this feature is always required. DONE [.7] 2004年02月12日: Jonathan to add links from the home page to the edtodo and the media-types archive. PENDING 2004年02月12日: David Orchard to produces a specific example of the kind of specification improvements he envisions. [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions [.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0047.html [.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0124.html [.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0076.html [.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Feb/0022.html [.6] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x130 [.7] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Administrivia a. Upcoming FTFs - March 4-5, Cannes-Mandelieu, France [.1] Joint session with the TAG, XMLP? No objection to have (informal or formal) meeting with XMLP at plenary May happen during lunch b. Web Architecture Document [.2, .3] review: Volunteers so far: Jacek, Bijan, Jonathan Next weeks call. c. Charter renewal - everyone needs to be reappointed [.4] AC reps need to reappoint WG participants d. Handling Privacy [.5] review Post FTF. [.1] http://www.w3.org/2003/08/allgroupoverview.html [.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Dec/0029.html [.3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/ [.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Feb/0033.html [.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0119.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ 5. Task Force Status. a. Properties and Features (dormant) b. Patterns (dormant) c. Attributes (dormant) d. Media type description (dormant) XMLP worried pulled TF back into WSD WG XMLP guys would still like to participate. Please use the TF list for discussions on the proposal. e. QA & Testing - Response to comments on QA Spec Guidelines [.2] - Implement QA Operational guidelines? [.3] [.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0000.html [.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Sep/0074.html [.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2003Sep/0023.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ 6. New Issues. Issues list [.1]. - 139: Non-deterministic schema (Gudge) [.2] - 140: Version attribute proposal (Tom) [.3] - 141: Should WSDL say anything about whitespace in SOAP:Body? (Jacek) [.4] - 142: Name of "message" component (Bijan) [.5] - 143: Referencing other type systems (Bijan) [.5] - 144: Why can't message reference simpleTypes? (Bijan) [.5] - 145: How can you tell which type system is in use? (Bijan) [.5] - 146: should WSDL be able to describe an operation with *anything* in the message? (Jacek) [.6] [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html [.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0045.html [.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0049.html [.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0083.html [.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0046.html [.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0110.html Note that I am not treating the following thread as an issue yet: - Reuse faults by ref (DaveO) [.7] I'm waiting for confirmation from DaveO that this is not obsoleted by FTF decisions. [.7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0140.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ 7. Issue 140: Version attribute [.1] - Tom's initial proposal [.2] and follow-on proposal [.3] (If this issue isn't ripe for decision, we'll move on fairly quickly.) [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x136 [.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0049.html [.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0069.html Bijan: use Dublin-core Sanjiva: no Sanjiva: issues with inheritance, binding versioning, etc. [* asir: Bijan, may I request you to give me a pointer to Dublin-Core versioning mechanism.] [jjm +1 to Sanjiva] Tom: sympathetic to Sanjiva; however, like simple things; don't want to have complex mechanism [Gudge: +1 from Gudge for a simple mechanism or no mechanism] Paul: branching becomes important when more than one person implementing the same WSDL Tom: Assumption: myWSDL, myService, indicate when things have changed in compatible or incompatible way [Bijan: Dublin Core defines a metadata elemtn "relation". Relation has a number of specializations inclusing isVersionOf, isReplaceBy, etc. See: http://dublincore.org/documents/usageguide/qualifiers.shtml] [*dbooth: wonders what Tom does in the case of a *mostly* compatible change.] [Bijan: There is a schema defined by DCMI: http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/.] Umit: Supported Tom's proposal at f2f. Need extra rules to support multiple inheritance Tom: no longer true in my latest proposal. Just use the leaf interface version number, forget about parents [Bijan: Some info on expression qualified dc:elements: http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-xml-guidelines/] Jacek: Problem with inheritance, e.g. B inherits from A, A changed by owning company, then B, implemented by a different company, is broken (as well as its binding) [Bijan: I should note that what I do with dublin core is mostly in RDF, not in XML.] Tom: No, by definition Jonathan: back to mailing list [pauld: thinks Dublin Core looks interesting, if Version can be xs:string] [Bijan: A discussion on using Dublin Core with XSLT: http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/200302/msg00251.html] [Bijan: An article about using an RDF encodign of Dublin Core with XSLT: http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-tipxrdf.html] [Bijan: Hmm. I note a problem with using dublin core for 'version'... it doesn't expres that document X *is version* (number) 1, or 2. It allows you to express that this document *is a version* of some other document. How annoying.] [Bijan: http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/identifier [* JacekK asks bijan if he meant identifier for versioning and whether dcterms:hasVersion vould be better (I don't know much about dc, especially dcterms:hasVersion)] [* bijan originally meant hasVersion and isVersionOf, but they are *relational*. They say that I'm a version of X, not *which* version I am. Identifier would allow associating a *Version identifier* with a document.] ------------------------------------------------------------------ 8. Issue 136: proposal to add in-optional-out [.1] - Amy calls for a quick decision [.2] [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x136 [.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0042.html Amy: +1 Jonathan: straw poll? TomJ: mandatory to implement? Jonathan: no RESOLUTION: Accepted, no objection ------------------------------------------------------------------ 9. Issue 96: Intermediaries [.1] Jean-Jacques to re-present the concrete issue. [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x96 JJM: SOAP does support intermediaries. Intermediaries sit between the initial sender and ultimate receiver. They can process and add header blocks. [* JacekK intermediaries can change the body.] JJM: This processing can be described in a WSDL separate from the ultimate receiver WSDL. But there is some interaction and overlap. Sanjiva: Could you come up with a concrete proposal? Seems to apply to SOAP only; difficult to see exactly what this is about. JJM: Yes, was actually planning on doing so this week; could do next week. Supporting intermediaries has impact on client and server side. Umit: yes, and we care for both (in general). Jonathan: back to email, and would be good if JJ could come up with proposal ------------------------------------------------------------------ 10. Issue 115: Improving on-the-wire conformance [.1] Need a volunteer to develop a proposal. Jacek did so (?) at [.2] [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x115 [.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0121.html DavidB: remove definition of WSDL processor from WSDL language Jonathan: is proposal from Jacek mutually exclusive [with issue 79]? Jacek: My proposal does not affect conformance, just what a processor should do in case of error. Jonathan: can we merge them? DavidB: Yes, will do Umit: issue at Oracle with wire conformance. Cannot even talk about wire conformance, for example if security is involved, messages on the wire will look different. What does a WSDL message describe? Sanjiva: it's abstract. Jonathan: in the absence of extensions and features, what goes on the wire is what is described in the binding. Umit & Sanjiva: yes! Jonathan: so no issue in that case? Sanjiva: proposal for Part 3 ednote: "Actual binding format is not just defined by the binding, but also by the extension elements in use." DavidB: Extensions may change the semantics of a WSDL document; for that part of the WSDL document, gets delegated to that extension. Jonathan: so add something along the lines of Sanjiva's proposal? And reclassify as Part 3? Umit: Would like to see write-up until sees the issue Sanjiva: make it editorial? Umit: Need to check within Oracle DavidB: May not be Part 3 only Sanjiva: Part 1 doesn't talk about wire, etc. Jonathan: need clear statement of our intent before closing the issue Jacek: Should we say only required extensions may change semantics? [Marsh: 1) Part 1 says extensibility changes the semantics; 2) Part 3 says Actual binding format is not just defined by the binding, but also by the extension elements in use;] DavidB: this is very valid, but issue 79 ACTION: Editor to add statement to Part 1 "extensibility changes semantics". ACTION: Editor to add statement to Part 3 "actual binding format defined by extensions if present" Confirm this proposed resolution at a later time. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 11. Issue 143: Referencing other type systems (Bijan) [.1] Text in 2.4.1 and 2.4.3 is inconsistent. Option 1: Clarify that extension type systems reuse the {message} component, (optionally) add a type system identifier property. Option 2: Clarify that extension type systems add corresponding extension Components, and {message} is XML Schema specific. [.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0046.html jmarsh summarises from agenda and asks bijan for a preference Jonathan: need more flexibility? JacekK: we are introducing extensibility for other type systems. Problem in bindings, e.g. SOAP binding. SOAP message could be described either by XML schema or SOAP data model schema. Propose to suggest a message is a single XML element, defined using a specific type system. Against extending messages as proposed recently. Jonathan: would issue 144 affect your decision on 143? JacekK: simpleTypes can be treated as elements with simple content Gudge: Not sure understands exactly the issue. Spec currently doesn't require us to say where this elements came from Bijan: it does say so Sanjiva: this is a bug Gudge: we indicate the element type could be populated by XML Schema, but also by DTD or RelaxNG Jonathan: some editorial work on section 2.2.1. Bijan would be satisfied with this resolution to this issue. [Gudge: Add text to row 3 of table 2-4 clarifying that the message attribute ALWAYS refers to an element declaration in the {element declarations} property on the definitions component defined in 2.1. Clarify similar text in bulleted list in Section 2.4.1] Jacek: If allow adding other components, would need extra formalism to mark these components as "data carrying", and binding is expected to serialize such components. [Bijan: Gudge: when would one populate a message component get populated by a non-element attribute? "The element declaration resolved to by the value of the message attribute information item if present, otherwise a similar construct in some type system as referred to by some other attribute information item if present, otherwise empty." [Gudge: If you used an attribute other than message.] [Bijan: When would you do that?] [Gudge: So mytypesystem:Construct='Java.Lang.String'] Jonathan: add note indicating in this case? cannot reuse existing binding, [Bijan: But that isn't an element declaration.] [Gudge: Agreed. If you have an element declaration, you use message='foo:bar'] [Bijan: So it couldn't populate a message component.] JacekK: constrain WSDL to services that carry XML data Jonathan: isn't this another issue? [Bijan: So, *no* other such attribute information item will populate a message component.] JacekK: Motion to constrict ourselves to XML Elements on the grounds of the alternative being too hairy Jacek: restrict ourselves to simple elements Jacek: came to the conclusion that any data model can be mapped to XML Sanjiva: Gudges' proposal seems to work; however some impact on style, for Example. bijan: as one who will be using a radically different type system, would like to understand what I will need to do to use this different type system JacekK: have to go; but no objection if close now Gudge: Make life harder for binding if allow type system that don't describe XML. Agreed earlier to support non-XML type systems; but also to support non-XML bindings. The issue is at the crossing: non-XML type systems with XML bindings. Umit: had similar arguments about RPC. Was worried "element" would no longer point to element type any longer. Sanjiva: no, we're not doing that, AFAIU Marsh: have we good statement if minutes? Gudge: think so; could post by email ACTION: Gudge: Send statement re. issue 143 Meeting adjourned.
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2004 13:14:01 UTC