XMLP Telcon Minutes, 25 June 2003
1. Roll call.
AT&T, Mark Jones
BEA Systems, David Orchard
Canon, Jean-Jacques Moreau
IBM, David Fallside
IBM, Noah Mendelsohn
SAP AG, Volker Wiechers
SeeBeyond, Pete Wenzel (scribe)
Sun Microsystems, Tony Graham
Systinet (IDOOX), Jacek Kopecky
W3C, Yves Lafon
W3C, Carine Bournez
AT&T, Michah Lerner
BEA Systems, Mark Nottingham
Canon, Herve Ruellan
IBM, John Ibbotson
SAP AG, Gerd Hoelzing
Sun Microsystems, Marc Hadley
Systinet (IDOOX), Miroslav Simek
Ericsson, Nilo Mitra
Fujitsu Limited, Kazunori Iwasa
Fujitsu Limited, Masahiko Narita
Matsushita Electric, Ryuji Inoue
Microsoft Corporation, Martin Gudgin
Microsoft Corporation, Jeff Schlimmer
Oracle, Anish Karmarkar
DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech, Andreas Riegg
DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech, Mario Jeckle
IONA Technologies, Eric Newcomer
IONA Technologies, Oisin Hurley
Macromedia, Glen Daniels
Oracle, Jeff Mischkinsky
Software AG, Dietmar Gaertner
Software AG, Michael qChampion
2. Agenda review, and AOB
DavidF: notes that he will be reviewing WG membership list in light of the
new work we are starting and members' attendance and contributions.
3. Approval of June 18 telcon minutes
Minutes approved without objection.
4. Review action items
DavidF: New W3C Process Document has reached REC, but is not yet in force;
expect it to be end of June to mid-July. The Chair et al will actively start
moving the Scenarios etc docs forward.
5. Status reports
-- Planning for next f2f meeting (July 24 and 25, Sophia Antipolis,
France). Registration is now open, see
(closes July 17).
DavidF: Some time during F2F will be allocated to work on errata, if necessary,
but main focus will be to make progress on attachment work.
-- Registration of "application/soap+xml",
http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html. See update and thread
6. Attachments (11.30 + 60)
The attachment document we are working with is located at
-- Placeholder for pending items
o Update on Copyright and IP statements
o Attachment requirements, see
o We have had a request from the WSD WG to comment on some draft
requirements for a hypothetical XInclude 1.1,
No discussion on this topic.
-- SOAP MTOM (Message Transmission Optimization Mechanism), see
Please review, and be prepared to say whether or not this document is
ready for publication as a Working Draft. If your answer is "not", be
prepared to say what needs to be done in order to publish.
DavidF: Several questions have been posted. Is it ready to publish as
a Working Draft? We wouldn't be bound to move forward with this as the
only basis for a Rec, but it would help make progress.
Noah: Publishing would be good, gives public visibility to our direction.
Should not be viewed as "fully baked", however.
J-J: Agree, it's rough but should be published, even though it may change.
Remove some of the end-notes.
MarkJ: Publication is fine. Notes having to do with packaging are not
reflected in this yet. Lots of loose ends, but let's put a stake in
the ground. Needs to be reconciled with Requirements document.
Is it independent from PASWA?
Jacek: Publish ASAP. One reservation may be dealt with after publication.
Note that Representation and indicating Media Type of binary data in
infoset topics need to be discussed in the document. (These are missing
parts of PASWA.)
TonyG: Noticed some typos; emailed two comments. Why doesn't it use
SOAP terminology (why "Inclusion Mechanism")?
Noah: Care was taken to represent this as a "feature" with a "binding"
that could be implemented as a SOAP "module".
TonyG: Also, how would an intermediary act on OptimizationCandidates?
No show-stoppers for WD.
DaveO: In general, almost "good enough", publish it. Investigate
relationship between this and Requirements. Capture more about
requirements in this document.
DavidF: Propose that we address the small points raised to clean up the
draft before publication, to make people more comfortable.
MarkJ: Many requirements are not yet addressed. Make a note that this
draft has not been reconciled with Requirements. Alternative is to
compare reqs against this.
DaveO: Say that this was guided by reqs, development of which is ongoing.
It is not necessary to do a formal req analysis after the fact.
Noah: Good point; don't rewrite reqs to match the implementation.
DaveO: Will propose text stating the relationship to req doc.
MarkJ: Agree with this approach.
Noah: Grammatical error in 2nd paragraph.
DavidF: Email editorial changes to xml-dist-app list, and Herve can make
updates next week.
Jacek: Will post text addressing mention of representation and media
TonyG: Property name in section 2.3, "aof:OptimizationCandidates" is
not a URI. "aof" prefix is not defined.
DavidF: Mappings between prefixes and namespaces should go at beginning
of spec, in a "Notataional Convention" section like our other docs.
TonyG: Yes, but property name is still not a URI. Suggest appending
"OptimizationCandidates" to the URI in section 2.2.
DavidF: Insert editor's note stating that we have not yet defined URIs
for the relevant property names.
TonyG: Other grammatical issues; will send a list of these to
xml-dist-app. Next issue: if SOAP modules always add headers, how could
this be implemented as a module?
Noah: This is an abstract feature. We will mainly be concerned about
ensuring that bindings can implement this, but someone could also do it
as a module.
TonyG: Last question is about intermediary handling.
Noah: Section 2.4.3 states this is hop-by-hop. Someone could define an
intermediary that reoptimizes the message, for example, but this would
be written on top of this building block.
TonyG: Suggest moving 2.4.3 first paragraph to the introduction and remove
"However" from the 2nd par.
Noah: Suggest leaving it, but adding a general description of this
to intro. Will write this text.
DavidF: Hold off on raising substantial issues until after WD publication,
but send editorial changes to xml-dist-app for inclusion by editors.
-- PASWA and XQuery datamodel, see
shall we proceed in light of this analysis?
DavidF: Noah outlined similarities between PASWA and XQuery data models,
so perhaps we could align.
Noah: Do we ever want to represent types other than base64Binary? If so,
how are they conveyed? Proposed how to formulate PASWA in terms of the
XQuery model, and it did not appear to be difficult.
MarkJ: Would not want to rely on end-to-end schema mechanisms. It should
DavidF: This would be a good topic for F2F, but please continue discussion
The WG thanks DavidF for all his effort in getting us to REC.
-- 431, semantics of attachments and intermediaries,
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x431 (was Q1 in
No discussion on this issue.
-- 432, how does binding determine what to serialise as attachment,
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x432 (was Q2 in
No discussion on this issue.
End of meeting.