See also: IRC log, agenda
Previous minutes http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-ws-cg-minutes.html
Minutes approved from feb 14th
[DROPPED] ACTION: Hugo to (possibly) work on an updated glossary and bring it for review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-ws-cg-minutes.html#action01]
[DROPPED] ACTION: Steve to negotiate a deadline for delivering RDF mapping for their Primer - awaiting responses [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-ws-cg-minutes.html#action04]
[DROPPED] ACTION: Steve to solicit resource for a RDF mapping for CDL - awaiting responses [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-ws-cg-minutes.html#action02]
Steve: unless there is a pressing need for a glossary, we should drop it. Both RDF related WS-CDL items can be closed. The resolution by the WG is that both are dropped due to lack of interest. We received no response at all. heard nothing from the RDF community, seems unlikely choreography will be able to include RDF use-cases in its Primer
Bob: addressing voted to progress soap and core documents to PR. request to publish ROR note sent today
Bob: interoperability testing went well, thanks Paul, Jonathan and others for managing the effort
Philippe: maybe paul could document this activity
Jonathan: thinking about a refresh publication
Tony: we may actually get to PR
Jonathan: another implementation coming on line
Yves: XMLP closed issue on async, moving towards PR in a month or two for SOAP 1.2
Steve:meeting setup with Imperial (?) who look likely to provide a second implementation
Paul: databinding planning an editorial F2F in week of 18th April, probably in London
Philippe: databinding has one planned in April, anyone else?
Bob: Addressing plan to meet in first week of May
Philippe: We're missing Michael. This was discussed at the lunch during the technical plenary, so we know that Michael is aware of it.
Jonathan: really an i18n / schema issue now!
Philippe: let's close this item then
Hugo: we organised a seminar just after the tp, in Paris to show use-cases for Web services and semantics in Web services. we had ~100 people and some interesting speakers. Interesting examples presented such as airline and hire-car reservations who make heavy use of SOAP
Philippe: many reported problems with interop and the contents of the SOAP body
Paul: the users' plight ;)
Philippe: also heard from Nokia and the mobile use of SOAP
Hugo: Nokia's phone uses interesting ; need a fairly advanced phone to use SOAP stack, cheap phones with constrained memory can't use Web services. They also use REST tools
Yves: read the note, mandates use of 202 return code. This has been discussed in XMLP, maybe if the note waited then we could ensure same pattern used for SOAP 1.1 and 1.2. maybe resolved tomorrow, or we'll at least understand how long it will probably take after tomorrow
Hugo: our PR document has an informative reference to this note, so delay might impact our PR publication
Bob: issue is delay and wonder if XMLP is likely to go in a different direction
Yves: risk of SOAP 1.2 using a different code for errors, possible to revise the note?
Bob: we'd be happy to do that, esp if that allows us to make progress
Jonathan: are there existing users who return 204 rather than 202
Yves: no experience with 202 and SOAP 1.1
Jonathan: ws-addressing testsuite uses 202 for SOAP 1.1 and 1.2 with no problems
Hugo: thinks monday or tuesday might be OK, but any longer might be an issue. Granularity is a week given we'd be opening discussion on the Monday evening. we might revise this note following substantive comments (from note status section) so we can change the note
Yves: seems likely that change may happen
Bob: sounds like direction of XMLP would form comments against the notes, but we should keep the window short
Yves: we may recommend 204 instead of 202 for SOAP 1.2, which will may cause confusion
Paul: has seen 202 in the wild - came from the WS-I use-cases
Philippe: if XMLP recommends 204 instead of 202, then we're going to have an issue
Jonathan: wonders why with our overlap between XMLP and WSA this hasn't been raised before within the Addressing Working Group
Philippe: my suggestion is we move forward with the note as-is. The addressing will have a chance to revise it before going to REC.
Bob: it's a fact of life that things change after the fact
Yves: I can send mail to the CG after the XMLP meeting
Philippe: please do
Bob: we should ensure that such decisions are made before June when the addressing WG is likely to be disbanded
Next call on 28th. Regrets from Paul and Bob.
No action items
[End of minutes]