14:56:52 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-desc
14:56:52 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/10/05-ws-desc-irc
14:56:56 <TomJ> TomJ has joined #ws-desc
14:56:59 <Jonathan> RRSAgent, set log world
14:57:08 <Jonathan> Meeting: WS Description WG telcon
14:57:11 <Jonathan> chair: Jonathan
14:58:36 <gpilz> gpilz has joined #ws-desc
14:59:34 <Zakim> +Plh
14:59:37 <Zakim> +Gilbert_Pilz
14:59:50 <Zakim> +Tom_Jordahl
15:00:09 <Zakim> +Jonathan_Marsh
15:00:23 <Zakim> +??P9
15:01:21 <Vivek> Vivek has joined #ws-desc
15:01:21 <Roberto> Roberto has joined #ws-desc
15:01:55 <Zakim> +Roberto
15:01:55 <TonyR> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:01:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see TonyR, Plh, Gilbert_Pilz, Tom_Jordahl, Jonathan_Marsh, ??P9, Roberto
15:02:11 <Zakim> +Peter_Zehler
15:02:37 <Zakim> +Vivek_Pandey
15:02:45 <Zakim> +Arthur_Ryman
15:02:56 <JacekK> JacekK has joined #ws-desc
15:03:07 <Zakim> +Anish_Karmarkar
15:03:14 <Zakim> +Allen_Brookes
15:03:30 <Zakim> +Charlton_Barreto
15:03:32 <Arthur> Arthur has joined #ws-desc
15:03:39 <Z> Z has joined #ws-desc
15:03:53 <TonyR> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:53 <Zakim> On the phone I see TonyR, Plh, Gilbert_Pilz, Tom_Jordahl, Jonathan_Marsh, ??P9, Roberto, Peter_Zehler, Vivek_Pandey, Arthur_Ryman, Anish_Karmarkar, Allen_Brookes, Charlton_Barreto
15:03:56 <charlton> charlton has joined #ws-desc
15:04:03 <Zakim> -??P9
15:05:05 <plh> Regrets: PaulD, Youenn
15:05:47 <Zakim> +Canon
15:06:01 <Zakim> +Amelia_Lewis
15:06:15 <jjm> jjm has joined #ws-desc
15:06:30 <jjm> zakim, Canon holds Jean-Jacques
15:06:30 <Zakim> +Jean-Jacques; got it
15:06:50 <Zakim> -Allen_Brookes
15:06:55 <alewis> alewis has joined #ws-desc
15:07:07 <alewis> SCRIBE: alewis
15:07:14 <alewis> TOPIC: approval of minutes
15:07:53 <alewis> minutes approved 28 September 2006 teleconference
15:07:59 <alewis> TOPIC: Action items
15:08:14 <alewis> (quickly reviewed)
15:09:18 <alewis> Jonathan: no longer affiliated with Microsoft, now with WSO2, will continue on working group, as co-chair and WSO2 representative
15:09:25 <Zakim> +??P31
15:09:47 <alewis> ... Asir continues to represent Microsoft (currently on paternity leave)
15:11:14 <alewis> (chaffer targeting Jonathan and Asir and Arthur)
15:15:04 <Jonathan> Jonathan's new email address: jonathan@wso2.com
15:15:49 <alewis> TOPIC: Administrivia
15:15:57 <alewis> Interop event, November 14-18
15:16:30 <alewis> ... Canon to host.
15:17:20 <alewis> ... location of interop event is Rennes, France
15:18:17 <alewis> ... more administrivia: should we review the change from x-www-url-encoded to www-url-encoded, approaching submission in IETF.
15:18:34 <alewis> Jonathan: do we need to review this, or make specification changes?
15:18:49 <alewis> little interest or concern expressed.
15:18:55 <alewis> TOPIC: features at risk
15:19:32 <alewis> ... features and properties awaiting submission from Youenn on MTOM (CR62).  Discussion awaits fulfillment of action item.
15:21:37 <alewis> ... is there anything other than Youenn's action that we're waiting for to make the decision on Features and Properties?
15:22:36 <alewis> Phillippe: SOAP modules may also be linked to removal of features and properties, since based on that.
15:22:59 <alewis> Jonathan: Glen modified that statement, to say that the functionality is less than ideal, but still usable.
15:23:27 <plh> s/Phillippe/Philippe/
15:23:28 <alewis> ... Arthur is suggesting that we need to make the Features and Properties decision next week, when we've seen Youenn's proposal.
15:24:10 <alewis> TOPIC: CR80, canonical component designators.
15:24:40 <Arthur> q+
15:24:43 <alewis> Jonathan: is the purpose of component designators furthered by having canonical designators?
15:25:48 <alewis> Jacek: yes, these can be useful to RDF and web arch generally, but ought to be "SHOULD" rather than "MUST".
15:26:27 <alewis> Jonathan: someone needs to write up the canonical form of XPointer URIs for component designators
15:26:43 <alewis> ... might be restricted to namespaces and such.
15:27:16 <alewis> ... canonical XPointer format might have utility outside of this group.
15:27:20 <Zakim> +??P13
15:27:34 <Allen> zakim, ??P13 is Allen
15:27:34 <Zakim> +Allen; got it
15:29:27 <alewis> ... fragment identifiers are too restrictive; component designators should be more sharply targeted.  Should be able to use a component designator as a fragment identifier, but not necessarily the other way around.
15:30:08 <alewis> Jacek: anyone using fragment identifiers knows how to use them, as a rule.
15:30:25 <alewis> Arthur: but in RDF, these things need to be opaque, comparable URIs
15:30:58 <alewis> Jacek: yes, but it's unlikely that two different sources will generate fragment identifiers from the same WSDL and then need to compare them.
15:31:09 <Zakim> -Peter_Zehler
15:31:13 <alewis> Jacek: it would be nice to have canonical designators, but is not critical.
15:32:10 <alewis> Jonathan: add a paragraph to spec.  "For easy lexical comparison of fragment identifiers ..." (he needs to put the rest of this in an email, probably)
15:32:52 <alewis> discussion of how to generate namespace prefixes, as applied to the problem of canonicalization.
15:33:16 <alewis> Arthur: does this also require that the base URI be canonicalized?
15:33:30 <Jonathan> - only 0 to two xmlns() and exactly 1 wsdl.*() pointer parts may appear
15:33:31 <alewis> Jonathan: we start from a target URI, which is lexically defined.
15:33:43 <Jonathan> - prefixes must be named ns1, ns2
15:33:49 <Jonathan> - no whitespace appears in the XPointer
15:34:01 <Jonathan> - no duplicate URIs in xmlns()
15:34:05 <alewis> Arthur: true for WSDL, but we also have schema URIs.
15:34:14 <alewis> Jonathan, Jacek: same thing.
15:34:45 <Jonathan> - multipe xmlns() parts appear in the same order as in the wsdl.* part
15:35:02 <alewis> Arthur: if namespace recurs, reuse prefix.
15:35:28 <Jonathan> s/0 to two/0 or more/
15:36:09 <alewis> Jonathan: are these rules sufficient for the case of an extension?
15:36:09 <Jonathan> s/multipe/multiple/
15:36:32 <Zakim> -Anish_Karmarkar
15:36:38 <alewis> Arthur: yes, the frag id is a string, so has an inherent left-to-right order.  name them in order of occurrence.
15:37:33 <Jonathan> "For ease of comparison, Component Designators SHOULD conform to the following canonicalization rules."
15:37:39 <alewis> ACTION: Arthur to revise appendix to include this text.
15:38:13 <alewis> Arthur: WS-Policy will also use these fragment ids.
15:38:24 <chinthaka> chinthaka has joined #ws-desc
15:39:54 <alewis> RESOLVED: CR80 closed with the addition of a statement recommending canonical construction of URLs representing fragment ids.
15:40:38 <Jonathan> note that the use of must within SHOULD is not very nice
15:40:55 <alewis> Arthur: maybe also revise the examples in the specification using the canonical form?
15:41:54 <alewis> Jonathan: one more issue on list, from 2004, note from TAG on safety extension.  TAG wants to track usage through deployment.
15:42:17 <alewis> ... suggest that at some point he can report implementation to the TAG.
15:42:26 <alewis> ... Woden and Canon currently implement.
15:42:47 <alewis> Arthur: can WSDL claim that something is safe when it isn't?
15:43:18 <alewis> Jacek: planning to use this information in research; although no implementation, it's very useful in its present form.
15:44:41 <alewis> Tom: reads this as looking for clarification on what "safe" means.
15:45:00 <alewis> Arthur: maybe we need to say that "read-only" is not enough, it needs to have no side effects.
15:45:08 <alewis> Jonathan: but we don't want to define it.
15:45:20 <alewis> ... point to canonical definition.
15:45:31 <alewis> Tom: can't we just add a couple sentences?
15:45:41 <alewis> Jonathan: no, they want something in the test suite.
15:46:12 <alewis> Tom: "we called launchNuclearWeapons twice, and it wasn't safe even though it was marked that way!"
15:47:05 <alewis> question: are there examples in the primer?  Is this the best place to do it?
15:47:44 <alewis> Arthur: there's discussion in the primer, maybe Jonathan should point the TAG at the primer on interface operation.
15:48:50 <alewis> Jonathan: yes, this text looks pretty good.  Reluctant to do more, except eventually ping the TAG again to say "still there, seems to be working, no internet-scale deployment at this time, but no reason to expect misuse"
15:49:11 <alewis> Arthur: is it generally an error if an operation is bound to HTTP DELETE and it's marked as safe?
15:49:29 <alewis> Arthur: can we check that in validation?
15:49:34 <alewis> Philippe: no.
15:49:47 <alewis> Arthur: sure we can, if we know the binding.
15:49:49 <alewis> q+
15:50:05 <alewis> Philippe: only GET is safe.
15:50:19 <alewis> Jacek: what is guaranteed to be *unsafe*?
15:51:35 <alewis> Amy: is there an assertion about usage of HTTP methods in the WSDL HTTP binding?
15:52:11 <alewis> Joanathan, Arthur: well, we should be able to work it out from the combination of the HTTP spec and the definition of safety.
15:52:43 <alewis> Arthur: yes, but we could put the assertion in, in order to have a test case that clearly violates an assertion (and is therefore invalid).
15:53:18 <pauld> DELETE is unsafe
15:53:32 <alewis> discussion of whether a WSDL can be called invalid if it does not violate a direct assertion.  can validity be based on implicit violation of the safety attribute?
15:54:34 <alewis> discussion of which methods are guaranteed unsafe.
15:54:56 <alewis> paul says delete is; jonathan suggests not (if there's a nonexistent resource, for instance).
15:55:33 <alewis> Arthur: and there is no guarantee that an application will implement the HTTP verbs properly.
15:56:07 <alewis> Jacek, Arthur: we can point them to the primer, and point out that it's not in the test suite.
15:56:38 <alewis> Jonathan: the issue will be resolved via a report to the TAG, the longer we wait, the more implementation experience we can report on.
15:58:45 <alewis> Jonathan: substantially completed with work.  we will have a call next week to talk about features and properties.
16:00:09 <alewis> NEW ISSUE: per email from Ramkumar Menon, question of fault binding raised in discussion of synchronous versus asynchronous.
16:00:34 <alewis> Jonathan: will add issue 81, and close it immediately by requiring fault binding.
16:00:55 <alewis> Jacek: faults outside operations don't need to have bindings.
16:00:55 <pauld> notes DELETE on a non-existent resource should return 404, not 200, 202, 204 and invalid implementations sounds bogus
16:01:26 <alewis> Jacek: uncomfortable with this MUST.
16:02:12 <alewis> ... maybe say it in the qualified version?
16:02:38 <Zakim> -Plh
16:02:43 <Jonathan> zakim, who's on the phone?
16:02:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see TonyR, Gilbert_Pilz, Tom_Jordahl, Jonathan_Marsh, Roberto, Vivek_Pandey, Arthur_Ryman, Charlton_Barreto, Canon, Amelia_Lewis, JacekK, Allen
16:02:46 <Zakim> Canon has Jean-Jacques
16:02:58 <alewis> Jonathan: maybe leave issue open for this week?
16:03:10 <alewis> ACTION: Jacek to send response email noting his concern.
16:03:31 <alewis> Arthur: in practice, you won't have a problem until you use a fault.
16:03:46 <alewis> Arthur: if something goes wrong, and you need to send a fault, you need to know how to bind it.
16:03:57 <alewis> Arthur: so there can be unused faults.
16:04:12 <alewis> Jacek: but what about faults that are defined, but not referenced from any operation?
16:04:34 <alewis> Jonathan: let's look at it; it doesn't sound controversial, just needs a little more thought.
16:04:41 <Jonathan> ACTION: Jonathan to add issue 81
16:04:51 <alewis> Arthur: yeah, probably happened when we pulled fault out of operation.
16:05:24 <alewis> Meeting closes.
16:06:18 <Arthur> assertion coverage report: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/assertions-report.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
16:06:21 <alewis> implementors' report.
16:06:50 <alewis> 226 assertions, only 54 covered by test cases.
16:07:22 <alewis> Arthur: also invites people to contribute to Woden.
16:07:47 <Arthur> Woden project needs help: http://incubator.apache.org/woden/
16:07:53 <Zakim> -Canon
16:07:57 <Zakim> -Jonathan_Marsh
16:07:58 <Zakim> -Arthur_Ryman
16:07:59 <Zakim> -Allen
16:08:00 <Zakim> -TonyR
16:08:01 <Zakim> -Gilbert_Pilz
16:08:03 <Zakim> -Roberto
16:08:04 <Zakim> -Tom_Jordahl
16:08:05 <Zakim> -JacekK
16:08:35 <Zakim> -Vivek_Pandey
16:08:36 <Zakim> -Amelia_Lewis
16:08:49 <TonyR> TonyR has left #ws-desc
16:09:07 <JacekK> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:09:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/10/05-ws-desc-minutes.html JacekK
16:09:08 <TomJ> TomJ has left #ws-desc
16:09:13 <JacekK> rrsagent, make minutes member
16:09:13 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes member', JacekK.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:09:19 <JacekK> rrsagent, make log member
16:09:26 <charlton> rrsagent, format minutes
16:09:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/10/05-ws-desc-minutes.html charlton
16:09:53 <JacekK> the minutes are public, is that a problem?
16:10:21 <alewis> bye, gang.
16:10:27 <alewis> alewis has left #ws-desc
16:10:59 <Vivek> Vivek has left #ws-desc
16:11:06 <charlton> zakim, list participants
16:11:06 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been TonyR, Plh, Gilbert_Pilz, Tom_Jordahl, Jonathan_Marsh, Roberto, Peter_Zehler, Vivek_Pandey, Arthur_Ryman, Anish_Karmarkar, Allen_Brookes,
16:11:10 <Zakim> ... Charlton_Barreto, Amelia_Lewis, Jean-Jacques, JacekK, Allen
16:11:52 <charlton> Zakim, excuse us
16:11:52 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were TonyR, Plh, Gilbert_Pilz, Tom_Jordahl, Jonathan_Marsh, Roberto, Peter_Zehler, Vivek_Pandey, Arthur_Ryman, Anish_Karmarkar,
16:11:52 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ws-desc
16:11:55 <Zakim> ... Allen_Brookes, Charlton_Barreto, Amelia_Lewis, Jean-Jacques, JacekK, Allen
16:25:18 <Jonathan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:25:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/10/05-ws-desc-minutes.html Jonathan
16:25:42 <Jonathan> RRSAgent, set log world
16:25:46 <Jonathan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:25:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/10/05-ws-desc-minutes.html Jonathan
17:25:38 <sanjiva> sanjiva has joined #ws-desc