Minutes, 21 December 2006 WS Description telcon
"Jonathan Marsh" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.services.description |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <01ae01c7253b$caf069c0$3401a8c0@DELLICIOUS> |
enclosed Jonathan Marsh - <http://www.wso2.com> http://www.wso2.com - <http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com> http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
20061221-ws-desc-minutes.html
(text/html, 19.7 KB)
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html lang='en' xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<meta name="generator" content=
"HTML Tidy for Linux/x86 (vers 12 April 2005), see www.w3.org" />
<title>WS Description WG telcon -- 21 Dec 2006</title>
<link type="text/css" rel="STYLESHEET" href=
"http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/base.css" />
<link type="text/css" rel="STYLESHEET" href=
"http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/public.css" />
<link type="text/css" rel="STYLESHEET" href=
"http://www.w3.org/2004/02/minutes-style.css" />
<meta content="WS Description WG telcon" name="Title" />
<meta content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv=
"Content-Type" />
</head>
<body>
<p><a href="http://www.w3.org/"><img src=
"http://www.w3.org/Icons/w3c_home" alt="W3C" border="0" height=
"48" width="72" /></a></p>
<h1>WS Description WG telcon</h1>
<h2>21 Dec 2006</h2>
<p>See also: <a href=
"http://www.w3.org/2006/12/21-ws-desc-irc">IRC log</a></p>
<h2><a name="attendees" id="attendees">Attendees</a></h2>
<div class="intro">
<dl>
<dt>Present</dt>
<dd>Charlton Baretto, Adobe Systems</dd>
<dd>Allen Brookes, Rogue Wave Software</dd>
<dd>Paul Downey, British Telecommunications</dd>
<dd>Youenn Fablet, Canon</dd>
<dd>Amelia Lewis, TIBCO</dd>
<dd>Philippe Le Hegaret, W3C</dd>
<dd>Jonathan Marsh, Co-chair/WSO2</dd>
<dd>Monica Martin, Sun Microsystems</dd>
<dd>Jean-Jacques Moreau, Canon</dd>
<dd>Gilbert Pilz, BEA Systems</dd>
<dd>Tony Rogers, Co-chair/Computer Associates</dd>
<dd>Arthur Ryman, IBM</dd>
<dt>Regrets</dt>
<dd>Roberto Chinnici, Sun Microsystems</dd>
<dd>Jacek Kopecky, DERI Innsbruck at the Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck, Austria</dd>
<dd>Asir Vedamuthu, Microsoft</dd>
<dt>Chair</dt>
<dd>Jonathan</dd>
<dt>Scribe</dt>
<dd>charlton</dd>
</dl>
</div>
<h2>Contents</h2>
<ul>
<li>
<a href="#agenda">Topics</a>
<ol>
<li><a href="#item01">Approval of last week's
minutes</a></li>
<li><a href="#item02">Action Item Review</a></li>
<li><a href="#item03">Administrivia</a></li>
<li><a href="#item04">CR108</a></li>
<li><a href="#item05">CR111</a></li>
<li><a href="#item06">CR114</a></li>
<li><a href="#item07">CR115</a></li>
<li><a href="#item08">CR116</a></li>
</ol>
</li>
<li><a href="#ActionSummary">Summary of Action Items</a></li>
</ul>
<hr />
<div class="meeting">
<h3 id="item01">Approval of last week's minutes</h3>
<p class='irc'>RESOLUTION:
approved.</p>
<h3 id="item02">Action Item Review</h3>
<pre>[Interop]
? 2006-11-30: [interop] John Kaputin to create a test case
with "required=false".
? 2006-12-14: [interop] Jonathan to fix transferCodings -
add control group
[WG]
DONE [.3] 2006-10-12: pdowney to review the Schema WG note on versioning
in 1.1.
DONE 2006-12-14: Arthur to examine the equivalence of 0006 and 0014
DONE 2006-12-14: plh to check with XMLP whether they should be
interested in 204 as well
? 2006-12-14: plh to come up with a more detailed proposal for
CR112 if possible
Current Editorial Action Items
Note: Editorial AIs associated with LC issues recorded at [.2].
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/actions_owner.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Dec/0062.html
</pre>
<p class='phone'>pauld: schema 1.1
- compatibility between it and 1.0 - comment on making that
more clear</p>
<a name="action01" id="action01"></a>
<p class='irc'><<cite>scribe</cite>>
<strong>ACTION:</strong> Jonathan to reference the Versioning
document in the WSDL Primer [recorded in <a href=
"http://www.w3.org/2006/12/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01">http://www.w3.org/2006/12/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01</a>]</p><a name="action02"
id="action02"></a>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> Arthur to examine equiv of 0006 and 0014 - marked as Done</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> Phillipe to check with XMLP regarding 202/204 return from [robust] one-way requests</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>philippe:</cite> Don't think this affects HTTP binding, no reason from XMLP group to not use 202/204 as indicated in last week's call</p>
<h3 id="item03">Administrivia</h3>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> Administrivia: No telcon next week, resume 1st week of Jan</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> Postpone databinding review until Jan 04</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> WSDL 1.1 component indicators - request from Ashok Malhotra to remove direction indicators from message designators, Amy responded that can't do this in WSDL 2</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> Express a pref on WSDL 1.1. component indicators to keep them consistent with WSDL 2 even though there is redundant info, or to go with the short form even though inconsistent with WSDL 2 indicators</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>arthur:</cite> Add more MEPs to WSDL 1.1?</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> No concept of extended MEPs in WSDL 1.1</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>arthur:</cite> No preference either way; pointed out that the direction indicators are needed for WSDL 2</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>amy:</cite> Point out that if they want compat with WSDL 2, should keep them consistent</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>charlton:</cite> +1</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>scribe</cite>>
<strong>ACTION:</strong> Jonathan to respond to Ashok
Malhotra/WS-Policy on WSDL 1.1 component indicators [recorded
in <a href=
"http://www.w3.org/2006/12/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02">http://www.w3.org/2006/12/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02</a>]</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> Note that I have a
draft [proposal] w.r.t. this area - assume that we will publish
this, but if you have any comments or feedback, please provide
to the group<br />
... MTOM description - skip over this for today's telcon</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>monica:</cite> Comment - have you
considered if more WG members were present so as to publish
comments on the MTOM policy to the WSP WG?<br />
... Interested in the area of simplified policies</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> Am interested in
whether profiled policies is the way to go</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>monica:</cite> Is this Canon's or a
broader domain concern?</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> Plausible that one can
impl a comformant policy process that is fairly straightforward
- is MTOM in use, and do I support MTOM - is this tractable in
a constrained device? If those two questions can be answered
then I don't see the need for profiles<br />
... issues</p>
<h3 id="item04">CR108</h3>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> amy and roberto sent
emails indicating no equivalence<br />
... sent an email with his equiv analysis</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>arthur:</cite> roberto showed we don't
have a constraint so that assertion 0014 implies 0006<br />
... with input element, must be at least one placeholder
message for the input message, and with output element, must be
at least one placeholder message for the output message<br />
... should explicitly place document level constraints; with
this i'm fine with eliminating 006</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>scribe</cite>> scribe: charlton</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>amy:</cite> I think we're close to
similar things, with different vocabularies :-); I'm
comfortable with 006 being removed</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>arthur:</cite> I want to add four new
assertions - w.r.t. the placeholder message for direction and
type</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>amy:</cite> Why doesn't 2.10.1 cover
that?</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>arthur:</cite> Addresses it at the
component model</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>amy:</cite> You will eventually fail in
any case</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>arthur:</cite> At binding level can't
have multiple binding messages for a single interface message
reference; I placed a counterexample where 2.10.1 would fail
even though the assertions would pass<br />
... 2.10 only discussues bindings and interfaces</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>amy:</cite> In 2.10.1, it is stated that
interface message is require - must create the property - and
must bind them uniquely per the assertion.</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>arthur:</cite> Not saying change 2.10 at
XML level</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>amy:</cite> Not suggesting that - but
what happens is that will have an error if the binding doesn't
find something that it matches<br />
... So what do we gain from adding the 4 assertions?</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>arthur:</cite> These 4 are document
level assertions<br />
... Input and output don't have direct correspondents at
component level - we can check them at the document level</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> New assertions - if we
add them at the interface, we're ok?</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>arthur:</cite> Yes<br />
... One input in the MEP - at the binding level, can put in two
input elements - that would be fine w.r.t. constraint on
message level attribute - but would violate 2.10.1</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>amy:</cite> Because it happens in the
binding, yes. But my question is I don't see why assertions on
the markup are not redundant</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>arthur:</cite> Markup assertions can
violate component model assertions</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>amy:</cite> But the component assertions
will catch these [eventually]<br />
... I don't think that these additonal 4 assertions will change
the set of documents that will fail</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>arthur:</cite> You can't even evaluate
2.10 until you construct the component model</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>amy:</cite> I understand what Arthur
want's but don't think the 4 assertions will achieve that</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>arthur:</cite> Ok, I do think they are
redundant - but the message you get may be hard to understand,
so these assertions are general<br />
... W/o message label, would be 0012 - but with other 4
assertions would get a clearer error message for each case</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>amy:</cite> Should we ask Lawrence
Mandel for some feedback on the 4 assertions?<br />
... We have agreed to remove assertion 006 (and assertion
004)</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> Yes</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>arthur:</cite> If only one message label
in each direction, don't need to specify it....</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>amy:</cite> I don't think there's as big
an issue at it seems - if we can get by without adding
assertions</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> Should we add
assertions that, although providing a better error message, are
effectively duplicates?</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>amy:</cite> If we didn't add these 4
assertions, would there still be a violation in some way?</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>arthur:</cite> Some assertions don't
even make sense if others are not satisfied - some are
pre-conditions for others<br />
... Pre-supposition of assertions - implicit pre-conditions</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>amy:</cite> Agreed - ideally in my
opinion the spec w/b such that an error would cause one and
only one assertion to fail</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> Do we need another
proposal for these assertions with more detail?</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>arthur:</cite> You can take my note as a
recommendation to add the 4 new assertions<br />
... Would prefer clear error messages that map to something in
the WSDL spec when writing a doc</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> Let's see if we can
close CR108 by removing assertions 006 and 004<br />
... Would like to raise a new issue on adding Arthur's 4 new
assertions - start email thread on this discussion<br />
... No objections</p>
<p class='phone'>Resolution for CR008 - remove assertions 006
and 004</p><a name="action03" id="action03"></a>
<p class='irc'><<cite>scribe</cite>>
<strong>ACTION:</strong> Jonathan to raise new issue adding 4
new assertions as per Arthur's note [recorded in <a href=
"http://www.w3.org/2006/12/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03">http://www.w3.org/2006/12/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03</a>]</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> Proposal - in-only
would raise a 202, robust in-only a 204. XMLP did not have a
strong opinion on this for HTTP (although they are definitely
not doing this for SOAP)</p>
<h3 id="item05">CR111</h3>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> Issue is about whether
we should say what the HTTP return code is for in-only and
robust in-only cases<br />
... Proposal from last week: 202 for in-only and 204 for
robust-in-only<br />
... plh checked with XMLP WG to see if they had a visceral
reaction - they had none<br />
... Any reason anyone would object to using 202/204.</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>arthur:</cite> Think we need this</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>charlton:</cite> Don't see a problem
with it</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> Any objections to
adding this?</p>
<p class='phone'>None</p>
<p class='phone'><strong class='resolution'>RESOLUTION: Accept
proposal to use 202 and 204 for in-only and robust in-only MEPs
in HTTP binding</strong></p>
<h3 id="item06">CR114</h3>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> What would you like to
see added here, Youenn?</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>youenn:</cite> Want mapping for robust
in-only</p>
<p class='phone'>(section 5.10.4)</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> You want a section
5.10.? mapping for in-only and robust in-only to SOAP
MEPs<br />
... Can this be done - for in-only it makes no sense at all</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>youenn:</cite> No, but for robust
in-only yes<br />
... Makes sense to map in-only and robust in-only MEPs to SOAP
response MEP<br />
... I would like this specified</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> Adding paragraph, for
instance, to 5.10.4.1 to talk about in-only and robust
in-only<br />
... Would hope this w/b straightforward<br />
... Add desc how to bind in-only and robust in-only WSDL MEPs
to SOAP request response MEP, taking advantage of 202 in
PER<br />
... Can we close the issue today?</p>
<p class='phone'><strong class='resolution'>RESOLUTION: Close
CR114 as per Youenn's proposal</strong></p>
<h3 id="item07">CR115</h3>
<p class='phone'><a href=
"http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR115">http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR115</a></p>
<p class='phone'><cite>arthur:</cite> Looks fine<br />
... Think point is that there are two independent assertions,
but this is an ex of how one assertion only makes sense when
the other is satisfied</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> In other words, the
target namespaces must match<br />
... Proposal to adopt Lawrence Mandel's resolution</p>
<p class='phone'>No objections</p>
<p class='phone'><strong class='resolution'>RESOLUTION: Close
CR115 with Lawrence Mandel's proposal</strong></p>
<h3 id="item08">CR116</h3>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> Constructing request
IRI - HTTP location template</p>
<p class='phone'><a href=
"http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR116">http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR116</a></p>
<p class='phone'><cite>arthur:</cite> We shouldn't recycle the
list or throw a runtime error</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>phillipe:</cite> No value m/b diff from
empty string</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>arthur:</cite> prefer empty string
option<br />
... That's how http works - if have form, input field, and no
value - it shows up as an empty string</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>phillipe:</cite> Don't like repeating
value option</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>arthur:</cite> Neither do i</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> And nice for us not to
force runtime errors<br />
... Proposal - should have schema s/t have enough elements to
address token names in template, but if not, use empty string
for any elements that remain</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>arthur:</cite> Think a SHOULD for the
schema w.r.t. elements and templates would be in order<br />
... Best practise that things match</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> Existing assertion is a
runtime check</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>arthur:</cite> Can check [otherwise]</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>Jonathan</cite>> Proposal:</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>Jonathan</cite>> 1) Rewrite
HTTPSerialization-5073 to talk about types rather than
instances.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>Jonathan</cite>> 2) Say each token
SHOULD match something in the instance.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>Jonathan</cite>> 3) If there is no
match, replace the token with the empty string.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>Jonathan</cite>> 4) Repeated tokens
are replaced by repeated elements in order.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>Jonathan</cite>> 4) A token may
appear more than once, in which case it is replaced by
corresponding repeated elements in the instance.</p>
<p class='phone'><cite>jonathan:</cite> Any objs to closing
CR116 with this resolution</p>
<p class='phone'><strong class='resolution'>RESOLUTION: Adopt
Jonathan's Proposal as resolution to CR116</strong></p>
<p class='phone'>Adjourn meeting</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>scribe</cite>> Scribe: Charlton</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>Jonathan</cite>> yes. I'll add
that.</p>
<p class='irc'><<cite>Jonathan</cite>> Thanks for
scribing!</p>
<p class='phone'>you're welcome</p>
</div>
<h2><a name="ActionSummary" id="ActionSummary">Summary of Action
Items</a></h2><!-- Action Items -->
<strong>[NEW]</strong> <strong>ACTION:</strong> Jonathan to raise
new issue adding 4 new assertions as per Arthur's note [recorded
in <a href=
"http://www.w3.org/2006/12/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03">http://www.w3.org/2006/12/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03</a>]<br />
<strong>[NEW]</strong> <strong>ACTION:</strong> Jonathan to
reference the Versioning document in the WSDL Primer [recorded in
<a href=
"http://www.w3.org/2006/12/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01">http://www.w3.org/2006/12/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01</a>]<br />
<strong>[NEW]</strong> <strong>ACTION:</strong> Jonathan to
respond to Ashok Malhotra/WS-Policy on WSDL 1.1 component
indicators [recorded in <a href=
"http://www.w3.org/2006/12/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02">http://www.w3.org/2006/12/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02</a>]<br />
<br />
[End of minutes]<br />
<hr />
<address>
Minutes formatted by David Booth's <a href=
"http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm">
scribe.perl</a> version 1.127 (<a href=
"http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/">CVS log</a>)<br />
$Date: 2006/12/21 19:20:43 $
</address>
</body>
</html>