Jonathan,
Although it's not recorded in the minutes, I sent regrets
for
yesterday's call on 8/30.
Thanks,
Roberto
Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> Enclosed.
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
------------
>
> W3C <http://www.w3.org/>
>
>
> Web Services Description WG meeting
> 14 Sep 2006
>
> Agenda <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-
desc/2006Sep/0012.html>
>
> See also: IRC log <http://w
ww.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-irc>
>
>
> Attendees
>
> Present
> Charlton Baretto, Adobe Systems
> Allen Brookes, Rogue Wave Software
> Eran Chinthaka, WSO2
> Glen Daniels, Sonic Software
> Paul Downey, British Telecommunications
> Youenn Fablet, Canon
> Anish Karmarkar, Oracle
> Amelia Lewis, TIBCO
> Philippe Le Hegaret, W3C
> Jonathan Marsh, Co-chair/Microsoft
> Jean-Jacques Moreau, Canon
> Vivek Pandey, Sun Microsystems
> Gilbert Pilz, BEA Systems
> Tony Rogers, Co-chair/Computer Associates
> Arthur Ryman, IBM
> Regrets
> Tom Jordahl, Adobe Systems
> Chair
> Tony, Jonathan
> Scribe
> Philippe
>
>
> Contents
>
> * Topics <#agenda>
> 1. Previous minutes <#item01>
> 2. Action items <#item02>
> 3. Administrivia <#item03>
> 4. features and Properties at risk
<#item04>
> 5. HTTP binding at risk <#item05>
> 6. MEPs at risk <#item06>
> 7. Issue CR079: Fragment identifier syntax not
XPointer
> Framework-compatible <#item07>
> * Summary of Action Items <#ActionSummary>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
------------
>
>
> Previous minutes
>
> ->
> http://lists.w3.or
g/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Sep/att-0010/20060907-ws-d
esc-minutes.html
> Previous minutes
>
> Tony: any objection to the previous minutes?
>
> Resolution: minutes approved
>
>
> Action items
>
> <scribe> *ACTION *[PENDING]*
2006-03-30: Marsh to make XSLT
> improvements for RDF publication. [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#acti
on01]
>
> <scribe> *ACTION *[PENDING]*
2006-06-29: Philippe to write up
> recommended text to clarify the issue in CR53.
[recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#acti
on02]
>
> <scribe> *ACTION *[PENDING]*
2006-07-06: Glen to contribute some
> extension test cases. [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#acti
on03]
>
> (Glen is attending the Policy f2f meeting)
>
> <scribe> *ACTION *[PENDING]*
2006-07-13: Roberto to produce an updated
> proposal for CR044. [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#acti
on04]
>
> <scribe> *ACTION *[PENDING]*
2006-07-20: Arthur to update "Proposed
> Part 1 Text for REQUIRED Extension Properties".
[recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#acti
on05]
>
> Arthur: link to this action item?
>
> Jonathan: look at the minutes. there is a link to them
from the home page
>
> <scribe> *ACTION *[PENDING]*
2006-09-07: Marsh to propose workarounds
> for CR78. [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#acti
on06]
>
>
> Administrivia
>
> Jonathan: Sept 28th will be about RDF Mapping issues
> ... we'll also try to do other business as well on
that day
>
> Tony: we also have questions from the editors.
>
> Jonathan: thanks to Jean-Jacques for catching up. would
like to refresh
> drafts at the end of september
>
>
> CR026 <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR026>
>
> Jean-Jacques: the commentator thought the text was
clear enough. When I
> tried to change the text, I realize that the case was
covered. Maybe we
> changed the text since then.
>
> Arthur: it used to be "should" instead of
"SHOULD"
> ... I was wondering it should be a MUST or a MUST
> ... it struck me as being inconsistent
>
> Jean-Jacques: not sure if we can impose a MUST on the
SOAP side
>
> Arthur: if the WSDL sayd
mustUnderstand="true", then it MUST be there at
> the SOAP level
>
> Jonathan: looks like we need to reopen this issue
>
> Arthur: the proposed fixed was to strengthen it. I
believe it ought to
> be a MUST
>
> Jean-Jacques: and the group agreed to clarify the SOAP
level
>
> Resolution: CR26: s/SHOULD/MUST/
>
> *ACTION Jonathan to
update the issues list on CR26 [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#acti
on07]
>
> *ACTION JJM to
update the draft with new CR26 resolution [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#acti
on08]
>
>
> CR041 <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR041>
>
> Jean-Jacques: Isn't this covered already by the last
paragraph of 6.5.2?
>
> It is an ERROR for a Binding Message Reference or a
Binding Fault
> component's {http headers} property to contain
multiple HTTP Header
> components with the same property.
>
> Jonathan: so it is placed in a less visible spot?
> ... Arthur was expecting to see the information. Did he
miss it or are
> we inconsistent in the document?
>
> Tony: Arthur commented on 6.5.6, and the response from
JJM is in 6.5.2
>
> Arthur: maybe I was reading in the description of the
http header component
> ... the test is clear. I thought we agreed not to have
an error, just
> "not valid"
> ... seems fine
>
> Resolution: drop the editors action item on cr41
>
>
> CR057 <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR057>
>
> Jean-jacques: It looks to me like an xs:string already.
(It's "type"
> which Is an xs:QName.)
>
> " REQUIRED. A xs:string whose pattern
facet is..."
>
> Jonathan: in 6.5.4, in the example, the name attribute
has a qname
>
> <Arthur> <whttp:header
name="xs:QName" type="xs:QName"
>
> <Arthur> required="xs:boolean"? >
>
> Jonathan: it is just in the pseudo syntax
>
> <Arthur> here is ed copy:
>
> <Arthur> <whttp:header
name="xs:string" type="xs:QName"
>
> <Arthur> required="xs:boolean"? >
>
> Arthur: the editors copy seems correct
>
> Resolution: close action item linked to cr57
>
>
> features and Properties at risk
>
> Jonathan: we're missing Roberto and Glen
> ... I've got requests to look at the
features/properties again. The
> official state is that we had two objections
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/07/objections.html> about them: remove
> them, add compositors
> ... at this point, Sonic is the only one left on
"add compositors"
> ... the Director looked at those objections and
disposed them. We did
> end up marking them at risk. The creation of WS-Policy
is adding new
> information.
>
> Jonathan: we also talked about trying to collect more
evidence about
> their use
> ... everybody probably has a good idea now how they
will use features
> and properties and policy
> ... Canon expressed in the past to have a way to
specify MTOM without
> engaging a policy engine
> ... we'll wait before making a decision. any comments
at this point?
>
> Arthur: giving the progress on WS-Policy and the almost
withdraw of the
> compositors objection, it seems that features and
properties are
> superceded by WS-Policy. It's now confusing to people
> ... it complicates the spec
> ... given that Policy is in W3C and is richer
>
> ... given the current WS-Policy Attachment for WSDL 2.0
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/pu
blic-ws-policy/2006Sep/0037.html>
> ... let's drop them
>
> Paul: I've been very careful in the past about this.
Now, we see
> features and properties as competes with W3C WS-Policy
and don't see a
> marketplace for features and properties
> ... we spent hours on this
> ... it's historical interest at this point
>
> Anish: agree with the sentiment expressed. editors, how
much work is
> involved in removing features and properties from the
draft?
> ... Roberto said in the past it wouldn't be a trivial
task
>
> Arthur: I volunteer to remove them from part 1
>
> Amy: one of the points that made in comparing features
and properties
> and policy, features and properties has a more strictly
defined syntax,
> so Glen would argue that policy might not fully
supercede features and
> properties. However, if that is the case, it ought to
be a suggestion
> made to the policy WG.
>
> <Arthur> +1 to asking WS-Policy WG to consider
current design of
> features and properties
>
> Amy: from our prospective, TIBCO agree with the other
commenters. there
> is not a good case to keep features and properties. we
should let it go
>
> <charlton> +1 to that
>
> <charlton> (+1 tp having WS-Policy consider
current design of features
> and properties - in particular features which features
and properties
> handles well which are not yet handled in Policy)
>
> Youenn: Agree with Paul, let them go. We want to have
support for simple
> things like MTOM without engaging policy. Policy is too
complex for our
> use case. One solution is unable SOAP modules to refer
to SOAP features.
> ... for example, <soap:module
ref="...MTOM"/>, even if it is not
> strictly speaking a SOAP module
> ... this is one proposed compromised. MTOM is an
important use case for
> us. Maybe we would have pushed to have a dedicated
syntax for MTOM
>
> Arthur: another point, we will have a transitional
period between WSDL
> 1.1 and WSDL 2.0, and WS-Policy works with both. We'll
simplify the
> migration
>
> Jonathan: if we do make a change to the spec and pull
out something at
> risk, what about our interop schedule?
> ... if we decide to remove features and properties (or
MEPs), I don't
> think we need to go back to last call
> ... we can refresh our CR and I don't think it will
have a huge impact
> on our CR progress
>
> plh f&p and mep were marked at risk, so no need to
move back to LC.
> earlier, the director was unsure about the impact on
the rest of the
> spec. if no impact, no need to go to LC. Youenn, why
not create our own
> extension for MTOM today?
>
> Youenn: a specific MTOM extension does not have the
same scope.
>
> <Arthur> MTOM should be included or enabled by
the SOAP binding in Part 2
>
> Youenn: it's possible to have such as an extension to
MTOM
>
> Jonathan: you want something in the REC document for
MTOM?
>
> Youenn: we had this capability with features and
properties, we are
> reluctant to loose it
>
> <Arthur> note that features and properties
enables MTOM but you'd still
> need a spec for it
>
> Jonathan: MTOM was still an extension even with
features and properties,
> it didn't provide guarantee
>
> <pauld> a MTOM extension for WSDL 1.1/2.0 sounds
like a good topic for a
> member submission
>
> <Arthur> btw, removing features and properties
may improve the schedule
>
> Charlton: I don't see what impact on the schedule it
will have. I'm not
> aware of features and properties implementations
>
> Youenn: our implementation have support for features
and properties.
> Don't know about Woden. We could of course remove them
>
> <pauld> less is more, we'll ship earlier without
having to process test
> cases, comments and errata on features and properties,
especially the
> problems we've had with inheritence
>
> Arthur: Woden support features and properties, ie it is
parsing them,
> but it's a little problematic: we store as a DOM
element
> ... but the composition rules were also unclear
>
> Youenn: our implementation is also partial
>
> Jean-Jacques: if we were to remove features and
properties, would it
> possible to have something else instead without going
back to last call?
>
> Jonathan: Youenn proposed changing the prose around the
soap:module
> description. the difference between modules and
features is fuzzy to me.
> An other possibility would be an extension attribut
> ... one thing that would be great would be to have a
proposal on the
> mailing list
>
> Youenn: we don't want to go back to LC!
>
> <Arthur> -1 to another LC
>
> Jonathan: if we go back to LC, will that be the end of
the world? We
> look at 6/8 weeks before going back to CR, the schedule
is not blocking
> us from moving out of CR. So I'm optimistic even if we
go back to LC
>
> <pauld> with our testing and implementations,
could we go from LC to PR?
>
> Jonathan: we might even skip going to CR and go
directly to PR
>
> Philippe: I don't think we can add MTOM as a WSDL
extension and move
> forward, The WS-Policy WG might have a say in this
>
> [Glen joins the call and Jonathan summarizes the
situation]
>
> Glen: I have nothing to add
> ... we certainly are not going to stay in the way. We
would pull out of
> the "add compositors" objection
> ... the objection is still somewhat valid, but we're
not going to stay
> in the way
>
>
> HTTP binding at risk
>
> Jonathan: this is not marked at risk.
> ... removing that would be more problematic
>
> Arthur: Woden builds the components, but Axis 2
doesn't do anything with
> those
>
> <pauld> "Serialization of the instance data
in parts of the HTTP request
> IRI" is at risk in Part 2 as are "the
Robust In-Only, In-Optional-Out,
> Out-Only, Robust Out-Only, Out-In, Out-Optional-In
message exchange pattern"
>
> Arthur: HTTP binding is useful for doing REST style, I
wouldn't like to
> see it go
>
> <charlton> +1 to Arthur - I would prefer not to
see HTTP Binding removed
> for the same reasons
>
> Tony: Mark Nottingham raised a comment against it
>
> Jonathan: and Microsoft sent a last call comment saying
we wouldn't
> implement it
>
> <chinthaka> We do have an implementation in Axis2
based on HTTP binding
> but we haven't integrated that with Woden for stub
generation so +1 to
> Arthur, as we see lots and lots of users of Axis2
interested in our REST
> impl based on HTTP Binding rules
>
> Youenn: we don't have support to serialize HTTP
messages. We would
> prefer to have it in the specification and not have an
additional LC.
>
> Chinthaka: Axis2 does implement HTTP binding and lots
of people are
> interested in this.
> ... especially for RESTful style of interaction
>
> <pauld> sees more benefit in resource centric
approaches such as WADL
> for REST; WSDL 2.0 could be useful for people
interested in POX
>
> plh: I don't know what would be the position of W3C at
this time. Yy
> own, personnal feeling is that we should remove the
HTTP binding, since
> WSDL isn't the best to represent REST applications
anyway. I do
> understand however why people are interested in our
current HTTP binding
> since they don't have anything else around. I'd
rather a resource
> centric approach however
>
> Jonathan: but you would loose the capability to bind
your service to
> SOAP and HTTP at the same time without the WSDL HTTP
binding. WSDL and
> Resource-centric approach have a place out there.
>
> Philippe: correct.
>
> Arthur: Web Services are already getting complicated.
we prefer to have
> a reduced number of specs and keep it in WSDL.
>
> Jonathan: certainly not have strong support to remove
it at this point
>
>
> MEPs at risk
>
> Jonathan: we only have In-Out, In-Only, and
Robust-In-Only implemented.
> The other ones could be cut and putted into a Note
> ... specifically In-Optional-Out, Out-Only, Robust
Out-Only, Out-In,
> Out-Optional-In
>
> Amy: it wasn't only about the existing bindings.
>
> Jonathan: do you have such a binding?
>
> Amy: can't talk about it, but it is worthwhile to
mention that we didn't
> put those extra MEPs for the SOAP/HTTP bindings.
>
> Jonathan: do we need to go on a search now?
>
> Amy: can we ask WG Members to bring search results by
next week?
>
> Jonathan: yes
>
> Tony: I'm in favor of getting rid of MEPs that aren't
used
>
> Jean-Jacques: I don't remember what the tests for MEPs
are. Do we have any?
>
> Arthur: for Woden, there are just IRIs.
> ... we don't have enforcement for the moment.
>
> Jean-Jacques: what did we agree to check? plan to
compare the runtime?
>
> Arthur: we do it for SOAP in a limited way
> ... between Canon and Axis2
>
> Jonathan: might be hard to test MEPs at the runtime
>
> Jean-Jacques: Canon will not add more MEPs to its
implementation
>
> Philippe: propose that unused meps be moved to a note,
which can then be
> referenced by other specifications since they are yet
unsupported by the
> SOAP/HTTP bindings. I don't like to recommend MEPs
that can't be used by
> just reading the WSDL 2.0 specification.
>
> Amy: the use case that I know of don't include all of
the MEPs, but for
> the ones that I do know , having a Note is acceptable
> ... are they normative as they stand? Not sure if there
is a meaning in
> having them normative anyway. I *think* we can support
a Note but need
> to check
>
> Jonathan: let's make a call for usage of MEPs
>
> *ACTION ALL to come
back with MEP usage (specs?) by next week
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#acti
on09]
>
>
> Issue CR079: Fragment identifier syntax not
XPointer
> Framework-compatible
>
> <TonyR> htt
p://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR079
>
> Jonathan: a small tweak would enable us to be fully
compatible with XPointer
> ... so far, we allow only a WSDL 2.0 XPointer part,
which is against
> XPointer. Moving the wording would resolve the issue.
[...]
>
> <TonyR> *ACTION Jonathan to
separate the canonicalisation from CR079
> as a separate issue [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#acti
on10]
>
> Resolution: 79 is closed by adopting the proposal
>
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
> *[NEW]* *ACTION ALL to come
back with MEP usage (specs?) by next week
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#acti
on09]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION JJM to
update the draft with new CR26 resolution
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#acti
on08]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION Jonathan to
separate the canonicalisation from CR079
> as a separate issue [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#acti
on10]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION Jonathan to
update the issues list on CR26 [recorded
> in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#acti
on07]
>
> *[PENDING]* *ACTION 2006-03-30:
Marsh to make XSLT improvements for
> RDF publication. [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#acti
on01]
> *[PENDING]* *ACTION 2006-06-29:
Philippe to write up recommended text
> to clarify the issue in CR53. [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#acti
on02]
> *[PENDING]* *ACTION 2006-07-06:
Glen to contribute some extension test
> cases. [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#acti
on03]
> *[PENDING]* *ACTION 2006-07-13:
Roberto to produce an updated proposal
> for CR044. [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#acti
on04]
> *[PENDING]* *ACTION 2006-07-20:
Arthur to update "Proposed Part 1 Text
> for REQUIRED Extension Properties". [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#acti
on05]
> *[PENDING]* *ACTION 2006-09-07:
Marsh to propose workarounds for CR78.
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#acti
on06]
>
> [End of minutes]
>
------------------------------------------------------------
------------
> Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl
> <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe
/scribedoc.htm> version
> 1.127 (CVS log <http://dev.
w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>)
> $Date: 2006/09/14 18:48:21 $
>
|
.
> <chinthaka> We do have an implementation in Axis2
based on HTTP binding
> but we haven't integrated that with Woden for stub
generation so +1 to
> Arthur, as we see lots and lots of users of Axis2
interested in our REST
> impl based on HTTP Binding rules
Absolutely!
> <pauld> sees more benefit in resource centric
approaches such as WADL
> for REST; WSDL 2.0 could be useful for people
interested in POX
WADL can waddle along and defined whatever they want. That
doesn't mean we
need to pull this out. If users don't want both let market
forces decide
the "winner".
> plh: I don't know what would be the position of W3C at
this time. Yy
> own, personnal feeling is that we should remove the
HTTP binding, since
> WSDL isn't the best to represent REST applications
anyway. I do
> understand however why people are interested in our
current HTTP binding
> since they don't have anything else around. I'd
rather a resource
> centric approach however
WSDL's HTTP binding is not about REST! Its about describing
how to
exchange WSDL messages over raw HTTP without SOAP.
Sanjiva.
--
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; 
wso2.com; cell: +94 77 787 6880; fax: +1
509 691 2000
"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform."
Sanjiva.
p.s.: Sorry .. I'm sure you're tired of bad jokes!
--
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.;