IRC log of ws-desc on 2002-05-23
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:00:54 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #ws-desc
- 15:01:17 [JacekK]
- JacekK has joined #ws-desc
- 15:01:27 [dbooth]
- zakim, this is desc
- 15:01:29 [Zakim]
- ok, dbooth
- 15:01:32 [sanjiva]
- sanjiva has joined #WS-Desc
- 15:01:35 [dbooth]
- zakim, who is here?
- 15:01:36 [Zakim]
- I see A.Ryman, ??P1, K.Liu, ??P5, S.Searingen, Steve.Lind, DavidB, ??P14, Jonathan, GlenD, ??P16
- 15:01:38 [Zakim]
- +??P18
- 15:01:54 [marioj]
- marioj has joined #ws-desc
- 15:01:57 [SteveLind]
- SteveLind has joined #ws-desc
- 15:02:07 [Zakim]
- +??P27
- 15:02:09 [Zakim]
- +??P25
- 15:02:15 [JacekK]
- zakim, ??p27 is probably m
- 15:02:16 [Zakim]
- +M?; got it
- 15:02:16 [sanjiva]
- zakim, ??P27 is sanjiva
- 15:02:18 [Zakim]
- sorry, sanjiva, I do not recognize a party named '??P27'
- 15:02:18 [Zakim]
- +D.Gaertner
- 15:02:30 [JacekK]
- zakim, ??p27 is me
- 15:02:31 [Zakim]
- sorry, JacekK, I do not recognize a party named '??p27'
- 15:02:32 [sanjiva]
- zakim, ??p27 is sanjiva
- 15:02:33 [Zakim]
- sorry, sanjiva, I do not recognize a party named '??p27'
- 15:02:37 [Zakim]
- + +1.408.406.aaaa
- 15:02:39 [JacekK]
- Sanjiva, I think you are 25
- 15:02:43 [sanjiva]
- ok!
- 15:02:50 [Zakim]
- +Philippe
- 15:02:57 [JThrasher]
- JThrasher has joined #ws-desc
- 15:02:57 [JacekK]
- zakim, m is JacekK
- 15:02:59 [Zakim]
- +JacekK; got it
- 15:03:00 [sanjiva]
- zakim, ??P25 is me
- 15:03:01 [JacekK]
- zakim, mute JacekK
- 15:03:02 [Zakim]
- +Sanjiva; got it
- 15:03:02 [Zakim]
- JacekK should now be muted
- 15:03:06 [Zakim]
- +J.Thrasher
- 15:03:09 [Zakim]
- +Igor.Sedukhin
- 15:03:17 [Zakim]
- + +1.512.868.aabb
- 15:03:39 [Allen]
- Allen has joined #ws-desc
- 15:03:57 [JacekK]
- zakim, unmute JacekK
- 15:03:58 [Zakim]
- JacekK should no longer be muted
- 15:04:14 [JacekK]
- zakim, mute JacekK
- 15:04:15 [Zakim]
- JacekK should now be muted
- 15:04:22 [JacekK]
- zakim, mute JacekK
- 15:04:23 [Zakim]
- JacekK should now be muted
- 15:04:28 [Zakim]
- +Dale.Moberg
- 15:04:37 [igors]
- igors has joined #ws-desc
- 15:04:43 [Zakim]
- + +1.716.383.aacc
- 15:05:57 [DonWright]
- DonWright has joined #ws-desc
- 15:06:19 [Philippe]
- Dale sent regrets? so Dale.Moberg is not Dale Moberg...
- 15:06:22 [Zakim]
- + +1.530.219.aadd
- 15:06:23 [Zakim]
- +??P49
- 15:06:29 [Zakim]
- +D.Wright
- 15:06:41 [Don]
- Don has joined #ws-desc
- 15:08:26 [Zakim]
- +Don
- 15:08:53 [youenn]
- youenn has joined #ws-desc
- 15:09:28 [Zakim]
- - +1.512.868.aabb
- 15:10:41 [Zakim]
- +A.Sakala
- 15:11:06 [bill]
- bill has joined #ws-desc
- 15:11:06 [Don]
- Minutes approved.
- 15:11:19 [adisakala]
- adisakala has joined #ws-desc
- 15:11:23 [jeffsch]
- dbooth fix linking to registration for face-to-face [done]
- 15:11:29 [JacekK]
- zakim, unmute JacekK
- 15:11:30 [Zakim]
- JacekK should no longer be muted
- 15:11:35 [Don]
- Action Items: DONE [7] 2002.05.16 DBooth to find out how to get registration list.
- 15:11:41 [jeffsch]
- jeffsch has joined #ws-desc
- 15:12:03 [Don]
- DONE [8] 2002.05.16 Roberto to post revised extensibility proposal, annotations out, revised extension.
- 15:12:03 [Zakim]
- - +1.530.219.aadd
- 15:12:13 [JacekK]
- zakim, mute JacekK
- 15:12:14 [Zakim]
- JacekK should now be muted
- 15:12:23 [dbooth]
- Meeting: WS Description Teleconference
- 15:12:37 [dbooth]
- Topic: Usage Task Force
- 15:12:58 [Zakim]
- + +1.530.219.aaee
- 15:13:15 [Zakim]
- +??P56
- 15:13:17 [Zakim]
- +K.Ballinger
- 15:13:35 [bill]
- bill has joined #ws-desc
- 15:13:43 [dbooth]
- Sanjiva: The document is out. Two weeks have gone by. The last telecon was organizational. I hope something will happen today.
- 15:14:17 [Zakim]
- + +33.2.99.87.aaff
- 15:14:28 [dbooth]
- Jonathan: Waqar also sent another draft of usage scenarios.
- 15:14:48 [dbooth]
- ... Should we publish it now? Discuss it more at F2F? Hold off?
- 15:15:19 [dbooth]
- Waqar: I saw the use case doc from the Arch group and it contained a lot of the use cases that we have, and i added them.
- 15:15:30 [dbooth]
- ... How will that synchronization take place?
- 15:15:49 [dbooth]
- JM: That's up to us.
- 15:16:16 [dbooth]
- JeffM: I think we should publish it with a disclaimer saying that it is the current state and we're working with the Arch group on it.
- 15:16:49 [dbooth]
- JM: Any objections to publishing the usage scenario doc with a note that JeffM describes?
- 15:17:15 [dbooth]
- Arthur: Has the revision included the updates?
- 15:17:47 [dbooth]
- Waqar: I made a number of updates, but it didn't incorporate all. Should we discuss the ones that were omitted?
- 15:18:13 [dbooth]
- ... I incorporated the editorial comments, but not all of the more substantive things, because some were not clear.
- 15:18:43 [dbooth]
- ... I've asked for clarification, but haven't yet received much feedback. So I didn't know what to do about it.
- 15:18:44 [Zakim]
- - +1.530.219.aaee
- 15:18:45 [Zakim]
- +??P61
- 15:18:56 [dbooth]
- ... I was hoping that it would be reviewed and I would get more feedback.
- 15:19:01 [Zakim]
- + +1.512.404.aagg - is perhaps MikeBallantyne?
- 15:19:37 [dbooth]
- Arthur: There was nothing that i strongly objected to. My comments were mostly suggestions and clarifications. I have no objections to publishing.
- 15:20:00 [dbooth]
- JM: With no other objections noted, let's go ahead and publish it.
- 15:21:01 [dbooth]
- ... Eventually the usage scenarios will migrate to the Arch group, and this group will only have specific use cases.
- 15:21:08 [dbooth]
- ... That transition may be a little awkward.
- 15:21:47 [dbooth]
- Sandeep: The other good thing about the other group taking it up is that the task force is pretty dedicated, so I think they'll do a better job than we were able to do.
- 15:22:04 [dbooth]
- s/the/their/
- 15:23:00 [dbooth]
- Philippe: I'd like to sync the status with the one we included in the requirements doc, and I'm not sure if I should modify that without the agreement of the WG.
- 15:23:16 [dbooth]
- JM: Anyone want to review philippe's edits before we publish it?
- 15:23:29 [dbooth]
- (None noted)
- 15:23:35 [dbooth]
- JM: We'll go ahead then.
- 15:23:57 [dbooth]
- ACTION: Philippe to update status section of the requirement's doc
- 15:24:06 [Zakim]
- -Dale.Moberg
- 15:24:21 [Philippe]
- ah, Dale was Sandeep.
- 15:24:23 [dbooth]
- ACTION: Philippe, Jonathan, Waqar to work on getting the usage scenarios published
- 15:24:39 [Philippe]
- action to myself: fix the bridge data
- 15:26:07 [dbooth]
- JM: THere was an issue from Joyce about overloaded methods.
- 15:26:14 [dbooth]
- Keith: I think we should discuss it.
- 15:26:36 [dbooth]
- ... I don't like the term "overloaded methods" because WSDL is not exposing methods directly.
- 15:26:49 [dbooth]
- ... They are "operations".
- 15:27:05 [dbooth]
- JeffM: I don't think it matters if we call them "methods" or "operations".
- 15:28:10 [dbooth]
- DBooth: I suggest we call them "operations".
- 15:28:50 [dbooth]
- JeffM: Now let's talk about the semantics.
- 15:29:45 [dbooth]
- JeffM: The issue is that WSDL currently allows overloaded operations; the question is whether we should disallow them.
- 15:30:18 [dbooth]
- Joyce: I propose that we should disallow overloading.
- 15:30:45 [dbooth]
- DBooth: I support that also. I think it is clearer to have different names for things.
- 15:31:18 [dbooth]
- Arthur: It also may have server implications, as you must decide which method to invoke.
- 15:31:46 [Zakim]
- -??P49
- 15:31:56 [dbooth]
- __: I agree.
- 15:32:17 [dbooth]
- JeffM: It also saves us from deciding when two parameter types are different, then you can overload.
- 15:32:17 [adisakala]
- Adi: I agree that we shouldnt allow overloaded operations
- 15:32:25 [dbooth]
- s/__/Adi
- 15:32:33 [Zakim]
- +??P44
- 15:33:15 [dbooth]
- JeffM: Is anyone in favor of overloaded operations?
- 15:33:25 [dbooth]
- (Silence)
- 15:33:47 [dbooth]
- JM: THe sentiment of this group is to disallow overloaded operations.
- 15:34:06 [dbooth]
- __: Can someone summarize what is the problem of overloading?
- 15:34:27 [Marsh]
- s/__/Kevin
- 15:34:33 [JacekK]
- Jonathan, sorry, I gotta drop out now...
- 15:34:37 [Zakim]
- -JacekK
- 15:34:42 [Marsh]
- OK, thanks
- 15:34:50 [dbooth]
- JeffM: One problem is that you must decide whether parameter types are different, and therefore the two operations can be overloaded.
- 15:35:16 [dbooth]
- ... (Couldn't keep up with typing the other reasons)
- 15:36:38 [dbooth]
- ... Another problem is that it makes the mapping to language methods more difficult. YOu might need to do somethign like name mangling (from C++).
- 15:38:06 [dbooth]
- Kevin: Sounds fine with me to take the feature out, but since it was in WSDL 1.1, we should document the reasons for dropping it.
- 15:38:23 [dbooth]
- ACTION: JeffM to write up rationale for dropping operation overloading.
- 15:39:26 [dbooth]
- JM: Another issue is whether one-way operations can return "false" or not.
- 15:39:51 [dbooth]
- JeffS: It seems that people were asking maybe for a new kind of message exchange pattern.
- 15:40:09 [dbooth]
- JM: WSDL 1.1 is pretty clear that a one-way doesn't have a fault.
- 15:40:26 [dbooth]
- s/false/fault/
- 15:41:33 [dbooth]
- JeffM: Where would the fault go?
- 15:42:26 [dbooth]
- JeffS: We're talking about adding a different MEP, not changing one-way, but adding a new MEP that has an input, no output, and a fault.
- 15:43:49 [dbooth]
- DBooth: It also raises the question of whether faults should be treated separately from outputs.
- 15:44:16 [adisakala]
- Adi: Then in that case dont we need to consider faults on Notification operation which has only output message
- 15:44:42 [dbooth]
- Sanjiva: Can you clarify what kind of fault you mean?
- 15:45:18 [dbooth]
- ... i.e, app level or middleware level faults?
- 15:45:43 [dbooth]
- ... But if you don't get a fault, then it means your operation succeeded.
- 15:45:56 [dbooth]
- ... So it isn't one-way, it's two-way with an empty output.
- 15:46:13 [dbooth]
- Prasad: It's an app level thing.
- 15:46:30 [dbooth]
- ... It depends on your framework.
- 15:46:40 [dbooth]
- Keith: How would this be handled over HTTP?
- 15:46:55 [dbooth]
- Prasad: I guess it woudl be a Soap fault.
- 15:47:35 [dbooth]
- Keith: Because typically you get a 202 now, i.e., "accepted", which makes sense.
- 15:47:49 [dbooth]
- ... because the incoming msg will be processed.
- 15:47:56 [jeffsch]
- re: dbooth comment, will our abstract model clarify the relationship between the response and faults?
- 15:48:10 [dbooth]
- Prasad: The problem with the current approach is that you get either a 200 ok or you get a fault.
- 15:48:54 [dbooth]
- Keith: But that means I need to do the business processing to decide whether to return a 202 or a 500.
- 15:49:54 [dbooth]
- Prasad: This is a common business need. You want to know if something went wrong, but you don't need to hear back anything if all is ok.
- 15:50:21 [dbooth]
- Adi: Why do we need another message pattern?
- 15:51:03 [dbooth]
- DBooth: Would there be a problem if the client gets back a message saying that all is ok, and ignores it?
- 15:51:27 [dbooth]
- Prasad: But I don't want to get back too many "ok" responses that I must ignore.
- 15:52:22 [adisakala]
- Jeffery
- 15:52:27 [dbooth]
- JeffS: It sounds like you want a "Nack" model (negative ack).
- 15:52:35 [jeffsch]
- (thanks david)
- 15:53:36 [dbooth]
- Adi: If we consider this case, then we also need to consider it for the Notification case.
- 15:54:12 [dbooth]
- JeffM: Can't one-way's return faults?
- 15:54:24 [dbooth]
- Prasad: No, that's why we're talking about it.
- 15:55:50 [dbooth]
- JM: Suppose I have a subscripion svc, and a new satellite image is pushed to me every 3 hours. And if the data is not available, should I get a fault instead?
- 15:56:29 [Zakim]
- -K.Ballinger
- 15:56:46 [dbooth]
- DBooth: It seems like the question is whether faults are needed at all for app level issues.
- 15:57:38 [dbooth]
- JM: It sounds like we have a better understanding of the issue. Let's continue the discussion on email.
- 15:58:56 [dbooth]
- ... I suggest that we close the current issue, and have Prasad open a new issue re-titled "Negative Acknowledgement"
- 15:59:08 [dbooth]
- Prasad: Let's just rename it.
- 16:00:06 [dbooth]
- ACTION: Prasad, JeffS close the current issue, and have Prasad open a new issue re-titled "Negative Acknowledgement"
- 16:00:36 [Zakim]
- -S.Searingen
- 16:00:45 [dbooth]
- GlenD: Are MEP's hard coded in the spec, or can they be extended through extensibility.
- 16:00:54 [dbooth]
- JeffS: Hard coded.
- 16:01:47 [dbooth]
- DBooth: If they are extensible then you're getting into the topic of workflow.
- 16:02:54 [dbooth]
- ACTION: GlenD to post email adding an issue: Are MEP's hard coded in the spec, or can they be extended through extensibility?
- 16:03:25 [Philippe]
- Glenn: SOAP include a MEP and I'd like to be able express it in WSDL
- 16:03:39 [Philippe]
- Sanjiva: use the extensibility mechanism then
- 16:03:44 [dbooth]
- Kevin: I notice we have two issue lists. Sanjiva's and Jean-Jaque's. Are they synced?
- 16:04:18 [dbooth]
- JM: No.
- 16:06:51 [dbooth]
- Philippe: Is MEP an architecture issue? Soap defines one, and we define one also.
- 16:07:08 [dbooth]
- ... So should it go to the ARch group?
- 16:07:31 [dbooth]
- JM: We need to clarify the issue first.
- 16:07:47 [dbooth]
- Topic: Extensibility Proposal
- 16:08:04 [Marsh]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002May/0149.html
- 16:08:05 [roberto]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002May/0149.html
- 16:10:34 [dbooth]
- Roberto: My proposal was an adaptation of a previous one. It is separated from the "annotations" proposal.
- 16:10:59 [dbooth]
- ... For annotations there should be a very simple processing model. The hard thing to design is language extensions.
- 16:11:25 [dbooth]
- Igor: I was trying to look at two of the proposals. The difference seems to be the ability to include somethign from an arbitrary namespace.
- 16:11:42 [dbooth]
- Roberto: There are a couple of differences.
- 16:12:01 [dbooth]
- .. I got rid of the architected extensions.
- 16:12:16 [dbooth]
- JM: SO you'd have to have a WSDL required or WSDL extension element.
- 16:12:23 [dbooth]
- Roberto: Not necessarily.
- 16:13:38 [dbooth]
- JM: So if I start reading a WSDL doc I can tell when i reach the extension mark whether this doc will have some third-party binding info.
- 16:13:55 [dbooth]
- Roberto: Right, for anythign optional, you can't tell it beforehand.
- 16:14:13 [dbooth]
- JM: And the other difference was the mechanism for indicating what was required.
- 16:14:56 [dbooth]
- ... We need to define the inheritance of what's "required".
- 16:15:36 [dbooth]
- JM: Two key difference: (1) I can't tell from looking at the first part of the doc whether there is an extension that may be required.
- 16:17:13 [dbooth]
- Roberto: The difference is basically at the top element.
- 16:18:15 [dbooth]
- JM: Any other opinions about whether we need both WSDL required and a top level element?
- 16:19:19 [dbooth]
- JeffS: It feels like the extra WSDL extension that you're defining is really about the architected extension.
- 16:19:49 [dbooth]
- ... I lost the motivation for the more sophisticated mechanism.
- 16:20:02 [dbooth]
- ... I clearly understand allowing any/lax.
- 16:20:12 [dbooth]
- ... But i'm missing the motivation for the WSDL:Extension.
- 16:20:47 [dbooth]
- Roberto: A language can require on a processor the use of rules that are global. The processor may need to know beforehand.
- 16:20:59 [dbooth]
- ... To avoid backtracking during processing.
- 16:21:11 [dbooth]
- JeffS: To allow a one-pass processing model?
- 16:21:42 [dbooth]
- Roberto: If you're defining an extension, then you don't want to have to label every occurrence as "required".
- 16:22:32 [dbooth]
- JM: It seems like the extension element is more convenient. But do you still need the "required" attribute?
- 16:22:42 [dbooth]
- Sanjiva: It's nice to have the info up front.
- 16:23:19 [jeffsch]
- (Thanks Roberto)
- 16:23:32 [dbooth]
- Roberto: If we get rid of the "reqiured" attribute, then suppose I want an optional extension that has a global attribute. How would I do it?
- 16:24:08 [adisakala]
- Adi: Sorry for informing late. I got to leave alittle early today.
- 16:24:14 [adisakala]
- adisakala has left #ws-desc
- 16:24:25 [Zakim]
- -A.Sakala
- 16:25:58 [dbooth]
- JM: It sounds like we should merge my proposal and Roberto's by removing the clause 5.d.
- 16:26:29 [dbooth]
- ... ANd in my schema we would call out the Soap binding namespace.
- 16:26:37 [dbooth]
- ... And we keep the required attribute also.
- 16:26:37 [Zakim]
- -??P56
- 16:26:48 [Zakim]
- -??P61
- 16:27:11 [dbooth]
- Roberto: And in section 4 of mine, it seems that we are talking about changing that to turn off required.
- 16:27:52 [dbooth]
- ... There's another point also, in section 5.c. (incorrectly called 5.b.).
- 16:28:40 [dbooth]
- ... I think if we were to write a similar clause for annotations we would write "a processor MAY...".
- 16:29:03 [dbooth]
- ... So I can be optimistic that the processor will actually do somethign with it.
- 16:29:32 [dbooth]
- ... If we have annotations along the line of the previous version, then the processor would not HAVE to do anything with it.
- 16:29:53 [dbooth]
- JM: ANd specifically processing of an annotation should not result in any different behavior for the rest of the document.
- 16:30:12 [dbooth]
- Roberto: But for optional extensions you SHOULD do something with it.
- 16:30:39 [dbooth]
- JM: SHould that go into the spec?
- 16:30:44 [dbooth]
- Roberto: Yes.
- 16:30:46 [Zakim]
- -MikeBallantyne?
- 16:31:46 [dbooth]
- JeffS: I think we can boil it down to saying whether you MUST or MUST NOT do something with it.
- 16:32:02 [dbooth]
- Roberto: Ok.
- 16:33:26 [dbooth]
- ACTION: Roberto to take another round at updating his proposal
- 16:33:35 [Zakim]
- -J.Thrasher
- 16:33:37 [Zakim]
- -GlenD
- 16:33:37 [Zakim]
- -K.Liu
- 16:33:37 [Zakim]
- -Don
- 16:33:38 [Zakim]
- -??P14
- 16:33:39 [Zakim]
- -??P18
- 16:33:41 [Zakim]
- - +1.408.406.aaaa
- 16:33:42 [Zakim]
- -??P16
- 16:33:43 [Zakim]
- - +33.2.99.87.aaff
- 16:33:45 [Zakim]
- -Steve.Lind
- 16:33:46 [Zakim]
- -A.Ryman
- 16:33:48 [Zakim]
- -Sanjiva
- 16:33:50 [Don]
- Don has left #ws-desc
- 16:33:50 [Zakim]
- -Philippe
- 16:33:53 [Zakim]
- -D.Gaertner
- 16:33:56 [dbooth]
- [Meeting adjourned]
- 16:33:56 [Zakim]
- -Igor.Sedukhin
- 16:33:57 [Zakim]
- -DavidB
- 16:34:00 [Zakim]
- -??P44
- 16:34:01 [Zakim]
- -Jonathan
- 16:34:03 [Zakim]
- -??P5
- 16:34:06 [Zakim]
- -D.Wright
- 16:34:07 [Zakim]
- - +1.716.383.aacc
- 16:35:32 [jeffsch]
- I think we can boil it down to saying whether you MUST or MUST NOT _recognize_ the extension.
- 16:35:56 [jeffsch]
- ... what to do with the extension is defined by the extension's spec.
- 16:36:02 [jeffsch]
- (bye)
- 17:29:37 [dbooth]
- rrsagent, where is log?
- 17:29:37 [dbooth]
- I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'where is log'
- 17:31:58 [dbooth]
- rrsagent, where am i?
- 17:31:58 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2002/05/23-ws-desc-irc#T17-31-58
- 18:34:57 [Marsh]
- Marsh has left #ws-desc
- 18:35:35 [Zakim]
- -??P1
- 19:01:55 [Zakim]
- WS_DescWG()11:00AM has ended
- 19:29:52 [dbooth]
- dbooth has joined #ws-desc
- 19:32:37 [dbooth]
- zakim, bye
- 19:32:38 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #ws-desc
- 19:32:42 [dbooth]
- rrsagent, bye