W3C XML Protocol Working Group teleconference, 4 June 2003

1. Roll

Present 17/12 Excused Regrets Absent

2. Agenda review and AOB

AOB Item 1.
Regarding AC Reviews of SOAP 1.2
Only about one third of the members of this WG have submitted reviews so
All WG members should encourage their AC Reps to send in reviews.
Also testimonials should be created and send in.
Testimonial guidelines are available at
(sent out by today).

AOB Item 2 (from WS CG)
Chair mentions possible plenary with all members of W3C WS WGs in
conjunction with OASIS @ XML 2003 Philadelphia. He solicits members


3. Minutes of last week's TelCon approved with no objections


4. Review action items

2003/05/14: Chair, JJM, JohnI, W3C staff (still pending)
2003/05/14: MarkN (closed)
2003/05/21: Tony Graham (dumped)
2003/05/28: Carine&Yves (done)
2003/05/28: Gudge (done)
2003/05/28: DavidF (done, some statements still pending)
2003/05/28: DavidF (there is currently no XInclude v1.1, XInclude v1.0 is
still not a W3C REC, currently no schedule for 1.1, XInclude group will
need feedback from our WG, XMLP should think about requirements, but there
is currently no deadline; action: done)
2003/05/28: MarkN, Noah, Hervé (no text yet, left on the list, see agenda
item 7)
2003/05/28: JacekK (done)


5. Status reports

WSDL WG dtermined that the SOAPBuilder's SOAP 1.2 binding for WSDL 1.1 just
supports the subset of SOAP 1.2 which is identical to SOAP 1.1. WSDL WG
decided not to do more work on this due lack of time
(Anish) concerned that SOAPBuilder's binding does not allow expression of
SOAP 1.2 features
(DaveO) Concerned that SOAP 1.2's improvements over 1.1 should be
expressible using WSDL.
(DaveO) Support of SOAP's new features inside WSDL will foster adoption.
(DaveO) joint task force would have been an option ...
(Noah) Placed the question how long will the creation of a SOAP 1.2 enabled
WSDL will take
(Noah) it could make sense to switch over to SOAP 1.2 for WSDL instead of
sticking to SOAP 1.1
(JacekK) thinks a sufficient SOAP 1.2 binding for WSDL 1.1 would be doable
in about one month
(JacekK) either SOAPBuilders should do it or we should wait for WSDL 1.2
(DavidF) we should know what is the coverage of SOAP 1.2 in WSDL 1.1 right
(JacekK) SOAPBuilder's binding does not cover big changes in SOAP 1.2, just
some simple namespace replacement stuff
Jeff volunteers to kick this discussion off.
ACTION: JeffSch to post his notes on WSDL1.1 binding for SOAP 1.2 onto

Registration of "application/soap+xml"
(MarkN) nothing new to report.
Since all the people who read the proposal are not present at the call
discussion it was decided to ... (see action)
ACTION: WG Members to review the media type application
ACTION: iif no pushback from the above action, MNottingham to submit the
application on Friday CoB


6. PR issues (skipped)

PR list is empty


7. Attachments

Update on Copyright and IP statements (already done)

Attachment requirements (has been posted)

MarkN, Noah, Hervé will report on abstract feature and concrete
implementation descriptions at next telcon - Herve has started drafting
text but the others have not yet reviewed it.

Issue 429
revised proposal
(JacekK) inclusion would be part of the binding and thus be invisible to
the processing model
Noah recalls that xbinc:INclude would not be visible in InfoSet and would
not be exposed to SOAP processing model and application but we did not
decide whether or not xbinc:Include is normatively mentioned in bindings
(Jeff) We have resolved that our interest in xbInc:Include, as proposed in
[ref to Paswa] is at most for use in bindings. It should not in general be
visible to applications, and if present is in general to be interpreted by
bindings prior to application of the SOAP processing model.
Issue 429 resolved with this statement without objection. Issue 429 closed.
ACTION: JacekK to send in closing text to issue 429 (as resolved on the

PASWA and XQuery datamodel
(Noah) XQuery has done a datamodel which goes significantly beyond InfoSet.
Especially w.r.t. to the lexical representation of an InfoSet (lex. rep.
linked to type).
Possible use case: sending the result of an XQuery via SOAP.
Noah proposes to get familiar with the query datamodel and think about
aligning our specs with this. It could be an option to reexpress PASWA
using query's data model.
ACTION: Noah to write up more on the relation of PASWA and the XQuery data

meeting adjourned.