Web Services CG -- 12 Apr 2005

Minutes approval

Steve: last time, we didn't have a call

Minutes are approved: http://www.w3.org/2005/02/15-ws-cg-minutes.html

Schedule updates

Hugo: I have added the June Addr+Desc F2Fs

Jonathan: Mark and I are going to need to start working on the next F2F

Mark: I'm having some difficulties scheduling it

Action Items

<scribe> ACTION: Hugo to (possibly) work on an updated glossary and bring it for review [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/12-ws-cg-minutes.html#action01]

<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Hugo to send email about XML 1.1 support and then dropping in WSDL 2.0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/12-ws-cg-minutes.html#action02]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-cg/2005Apr/0003.html

WS-Addressing Async investigation

Mark: we'll have a report from the TF next week
... we started talking to XMLP about it, but the problem wasn't well described at this point
... so there was some initial pushback

Addressing WSDL binding deliverable

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-cg/2005Apr/0000.html

Jonathan: you use the word based

Hugo: I meant built on top of

Jonathan: so we're recommending an extension

Hugo: but therefore you're recommending the use of WSDL 1.1

Jonathan: so you want me to ask the WSDL WG?

Hugo: yes; it would be useful to know if they think it will damage their work, or they're fine with pushing people toward 1.1, or they don't have an opinion

Steve: CDL has a similar problem; we need to test implementations, and WSDL 2.0 impl are not there yet
... what would happen if you delayed your WSDL deliverable?

Jonathan: we could maybe arrange to have the WSDL 1.1 work done early, but you're not sure it will be stable until it's released as a Rec

Steve: who depends on Addressing?

Mark: RM, etc.
... the most important point is being able to do async interactions

Steve: I'm nervous about doing a Rec depending on WSDL 1.1 which isn't a Rec, sharing Hugo's concerns

Mark: a WG Note was proposed, but a Member (Microsoft) was worried about the content of a Note changing
... the other solution is to publish 2 documents

Jonathan: I think that Microsoft and Oracle agree on this

<scribe> ACTION: Jonathan to get feedback from WSDWG; to be scheduled at the F2F next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/12-ws-cg-minutes.html#action03]

Steve: my feeling is that publishing a WG Note would do fine for this; publishing a Rec is taking the risk to subvert a perfectly good process

W3C Workshop on XML Schema 1.0 User Experiences and Interoperability

Michael: it's been announced to the AC and publicly
... we are inviting the WS community
... please let people know about this

Reports

- Chor

Martin: on target for CR in June

[ scribe missed details ]

- Description

Jonathan: we're still moving along
... but our schedule is still slipping
... we have about 50 issues left
... they're not the hardest ones though
... maybe we can deal with half next week
... targeting next F2F for finishing them
... will do a short 2nd LC
... we still have a couple of issues on the media type doc
... we should be done in 1-2 weeks

Steve: what's your best case for getting to LC?

Jonathan: 10 days after June F2F, i.e. mid-June
... we will be strict with comments

- XMLP

Mike: we sent a couple of comments back on the media type Note
... it looks like the WSDWG is going to publish it
... we made a PER transition request
... re. async work: if we had a good scope of the work to be done, we may be able to deal with the pushback from one of the members

- Addressing

Mark: we're in LC; comments by May 11
... we're having a F2F next week

- XML CG

Michael: publication of LCWD for Query and XSLT
... I encourage you to send comments

Next call

26 April

Hugo can't make it

Mike can't make it either

Meeting in 2 weeks then

Web Services CG

12 Apr 2005

Attendees

Contents