See also: IRC log
Minutes at: http://www.w3.org/2005/06/28-ws-cg-minutes.html
<scribe> ACTION: Mike to present one-way MEP/binding plan to XMLP WG [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/05-ws-cg-minutes.html#action01]
Mike: I'm planning to talk about it tomorrow
... though there's a lot of people missing, so I might postpone that by a
week
<scribe> ACTION: Hugo to (possibly) work on an updated glossary and bring it for review [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/05-ws-cg-minutes.html#action02]
<scribe> ACTION: Steve to send text for new choreography/orchestration definitions to Hugo [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/05-ws-cg-minutes.html#action03]
Michael: we had a workshop on user experiences
with XML Schema
... we focused especially on interop issues, with a lot of emphasis on
WS-related things
Michael: and also the behavior of data binding tools
Michael: several people mentioned that the
difficulty understanding the spec has been a problem, but we now have
agreement on things
... people have now higher interest in unevenness in data binding tools
Michael: some tools produce invalid schemas, and some people have been bitten by this
Michael: and the uneven way that tools support
the data binding of schema constructs
... people wanted a schema wiki, that we have now created
<plh-home> http://esw.w3.org/topic/XML_Schema Wiki
Michael: there was support for work on errata,
versioning
... most crucially, there was a lot of support for better documentation for
which schema constructs have good supports for data binding
... there are certain parts of schema that are better supported than
others
... e.g. for Java and C# classes
... this subset of schema will give you a good programmer experience
... outside of that sweet spot, you'll have a less good experience
... at least for people using data binding tools
... there was a lot of support for this
<SRT> Hi P
Michael: we have been thinking hard about how
to move forward on this, and we're thinking about a WG, probably working on
producing a Rec, describing patterns for good data binding
... it will probably be done in the WS Activity, as the experience with data
binding tools is in the WS Activity, not in the XML Activity
... the Team is interested in feedback from this Group
Philippe: there will be 2 mailing lists for discussing this, including a public one for wide feedback
Steve: do you want feedback from the WGs or from the chairs on the CG?
Michael: any feedback is good, though, immediately speaking, we're asking CG members
Jonathan: I'm not sure I have a firm idea about
whether W3C is the right place to do this
... some people wanted it to happen at WS-I, others at W3C
... the work on the profile seems to be of interest
... I need to think about it more
Mike: I also need to think about it more
Steve: I'm intrigued at the idea
... given the difficulty we've had with Schema as few people were
understanding it
... I am interested in anything giving us better tools
... with regards to W3C or WS-I, I don't have an opinion, as I'm not familiar
enough with WS-I
Jonathan: one way that this could be harmful
would be if it was done by the Schema WG
... it needs to be done by a domain, and the WS Activity seems like a good
fit
Philippe: WSDL authors are the primary
customers
... and that's why with been talking about patterns instead of a profile
... it could be done in 2 phases:
... 1. take XML Schema 1.0, and target some Schema structures
... 2. some extensions using Schema annotations
... the first phase would be quite simple and short
Jonathan: is this information public?
Philippe: it will be public very soon
... as soon as the AC is informed
-- Choreography
Steve: we hope to get to CR around the end of
the month
... there's more and more interest for using CDL with BPEL
... we'll have open source CDL+BPEL+WSDL(1.1|2.0) generators announced
momentarilly
... interestingly, we can attach to WSDL 1.1 and 2.0 invariably
<MSM> http://www.w3.org/2005/03/xml-schema-user-cfp
<MSM> http://www.w3.org/2005/03/xml-schema-user-program.html
-- Description
Jonathan: we're still working on LC124
... at this week's call, we'll vote on going to LC with our Drafts
<SRT> Open source is on: www.pi4tech.com (examples) and www.pi4soa.org (source and eclipse plugins)
-- Protocol
Mike: we are trying to arrange a call for the
SOAP 1.2 PER
... it looks that there may be some pushback on the XML 1.0 restriction in
SOAP 1.2
... I'm working with Yves on a timeline for the SOAP one-way work
Philippe: the current issue is that the Infoset
is restricted to XML 1.0
... we fear that this restriction is going to be problematic in the future
... the same way that XML got tied to a particular version of Unicode, Schema
1.0 was tied to XML 1.0, etc.
-- Addressing
Hugo: working on our last LC issues
Philippe: there will be a call about Addressing's status with the Director, the chair and Team contact in a couple of days
-- XML CG
Michael: we've had discussions about the Schema
workshop
... people agreed that the WS Activity was a good home
... though there were concerns about 2 WGs writing normative specs about the
same thing
... XML Query and XSL are nearing the end of their LC period
-- SWSIG
Carine: we had the workshop on frameworks for
semantics in Web services
... we had a lot of participation, mostly researchers, but also some industry
people
... the conclusion of the workshop was that the big frameworks are seen as
too big
... the possible outcome are working in the IG, or in a WG, or an XG, on use
cases
... or to work on semantic annotation for WSDL, in the spirit of WSDL-S
... there currently is some discussion about action in the IG list
Discussion thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sws-ig/2005Jun/0080.html
Carine: we're waiting a little to take a decision
Steve: how did the researchers react to that?
Carine: people wanted to keep things simple
Hugo: this action concept could be a nice bridge from the WS world to the SWS world, without much disruption at all
Steve: is there much discussion of the SWSIG with WS WGs?
Hugo: not enough; we have been encouraging this as we would benefit a lot from talking to each others
Steve: the Choreography would really appreciate more feedback
26 July 2005
And then no calls in August