15:00:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-desc
15:00:03 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/01/18-ws-desc-irc
15:00:12 <Jonathan> RRSAgent, set log world
15:00:23 <Jonathan> Topic: Implementer's call
15:03:19 <Jonathan> zakim, code?
15:03:19 <Zakim> the conference code is 9735 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Jonathan
15:04:47 <jkaputin> jkaputin has joined #ws-desc
15:05:41 <Zakim> WS_DescWG(WSDL)10:00AM has now started
15:05:42 <Zakim> +hughesj
15:06:38 <plh2> plh2 has joined #ws-desc
15:06:49 <Zakim> +??P21
15:06:51 <Zakim> -??P21
15:06:52 <Zakim> +??P21
15:06:58 <Zakim> +Plh
15:07:01 <jkaputin> Look's like I'm showing as Jeremy Hughes today instead of Roland Merick
15:07:03 <Jonathan> Zakim, ??P21 is Jonathan
15:07:03 <Zakim> +Jonathan; got it
15:08:12 <plh2> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/results-messages/MessageTest-1G/log-MessageTest1G-canon-canon-results.html#message1
15:16:00 <youenn> youenn has joined #ws-desc
15:16:07 <Zakim> +[Canon]
15:17:50 <Jonathan>     <test id="MessageTest-6G" binding="SOAP12">
15:18:01 <Jonathan>         <log client="wso2" service="wso2" id="MessageTeest-6G-wso2-wso2"
15:18:06 <Jonathan>             >MessageTest-6G/log-MessageTest6G-wso2-wso2-output.xml</log>
15:18:11 <Jonathan>     </test>
15:18:38 <Jonathan>         <log client="wso2" service="wso2" id="ModuleComposition-1G-wso2-wso2"
15:18:45 <Jonathan>             >ModuleComposition-1G/log-ModuleComposition1G-wso2-wso2-output.xml</log>
15:20:50 <Jonathan> ACTION: Jonathan to factor multipart out of MessageTest-2G
15:23:00 <plh> /home/plehegar/dev/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/results-messages/build.xml:195: input file /home/plehegar/dev/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/documents/good/MessageTest-6G/SOAPservice.wsdl does not exist
15:23:20 <plh> hum, did you forget to add this file in cvs Jonathan?
15:42:46 <alewis> alewis has joined #ws-desc
15:43:15 <plh> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/results-messages/Message-tests-results.html
15:54:22 <Zakim> -hughesj
15:54:23 <Zakim> -Plh
15:54:25 <Zakim> -Jonathan
15:54:26 <Zakim> WS_DescWG(WSDL)10:00AM has ended
15:54:27 <Zakim> Attendees were hughesj, Plh, Jonathan, [Canon]
15:55:30 <Jonathan> Zakim, this will be WSDesc
15:55:30 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, Jonathan
15:55:36 <Jonathan> zakim, list conferences
15:55:36 <Zakim> I see MWI_BPWG()10:00AM, Math_IG()10:00AM, WAI_Team()10:45AM active
15:55:37 <Zakim> also scheduled at this time are XML_PMWG()11:00AM, WS_DescWG()11:00AM, DI_DIWG(dpf)10:00AM, WS_DescWG(WSDL)10:00AM, GA_WebCGM()11:00AM, Team_Global(review)8:00AM,
15:55:40 <Zakim> ... I18N_Core_WG(WS-I18N)11:00AM, DIG_TAMI()11:00AM, VB_VBWG()10:00AM, SW_HCLS()11:00AM
15:55:51 <Jonathan> Zakim, this will be WS-DescWG
15:55:51 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, Jonathan
15:56:13 <Jonathan> Zakim, this will be WS_DescWG
15:56:13 <Zakim> "WS_DescWG" matches WS_DescWG()11:00AM, and WS_DescWG(WSDL)10:00AM, Jonathan
15:56:44 <Jonathan> Zakim, you are bloody obstinate!
15:56:44 <Zakim> I don't understand 'you are bloody obstinate!', Jonathan
15:56:54 <Jonathan> Zakim, this will be WS_DescWG()
15:56:54 <Zakim> ok, Jonathan; I see WS_DescWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
15:57:43 <TonyR> TonyR has joined #ws-desc
15:59:00 <gpilz> gpilz has joined #ws-desc
16:00:10 <Zakim> WS_DescWG()11:00AM has now started
16:00:15 <Zakim> +Gilbert_Pilz
16:00:23 <Allen> Allen has joined #ws-desc
16:00:59 <Zakim> + +028207aaaa
16:01:03 <Zakim> -Gilbert_Pilz
16:01:04 <Zakim> +Gilbert_Pilz
16:01:23 <TonyR> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:01:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see Gilbert_Pilz, +028207aaaa
16:01:34 <Zakim> +Allen_Brookes
16:01:43 <Jonathan> zakim, code?
16:01:43 <Zakim> the conference code is 97394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Jonathan
16:02:03 <Zakim> + +1.415.268.aabb
16:02:16 <Zakim> -Allen_Brookes
16:02:37 <Zakim> +alewis
16:02:58 <Zakim> +Allen_Brookes
16:03:25 <Zakim> +??P46
16:04:26 <Roberto_> Roberto_ has joined #ws-desc
16:06:17 <TonyR> zakim, ??p46 is Jonathan
16:06:17 <Zakim> +Jonathan; got it
16:06:47 <Zakim> +Plh
16:09:01 <TonyR> zakim, +02 is me
16:09:01 <Zakim> +TonyR; got it
16:09:53 <gpilz> scribe gpilz
16:10:01 <gpilz> scribe: gpilz
16:10:09 <gpilz> Topic: minutes
16:10:14 <gpilz> ... approved
16:10:29 <gpilz> Topic: action items
16:11:08 <gpilz> ... Phillipe posted his proposed grammar
16:11:16 <gpilz> Topic: administrivia
16:11:27 <gpilz> ... Mostly defered items
16:12:30 <gpilz> Topic: CR130
16:12:45 <gpilz> Phillipe has proposed a grammar
16:13:15 <plh> httpLocation ::= CharData? (( openBrace | closeBrace | elementName ) CharData?)*
16:13:15 <plh> CharData ::= [^{}]*
16:13:15 <plh> openBrace ::= '{{'
16:13:15 <plh> closeBrace ::= '}}'
16:13:15 <plh> elementName ::= '{' NCName '}'
16:13:16 <Zakim> +hughesj
16:13:52 <jkaputin> jkaputin has joined #ws-desc
16:14:06 <Zakim> +[Canon]
16:14:15 <gpilz> John Kaputin: Grammar seems ok to me.
16:14:56 <gpilz> Jonathan: Everybody ok with this?
16:17:22 <gpilz> Resolution: Close CR130 with this proposal (mod change proposed by Jonathan and reference to XML spec (?))
16:17:43 <gpilz> Topic: CR118
16:18:18 <gpilz> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR118
16:18:33 <gpilz> Jonathan: (reviews issue)
16:19:02 <gpilz> Phillipe: Is the schema normative?
16:19:16 <gpilz> Jonathan: Yes.
16:20:24 <Zakim> -Jonathan
16:20:59 <gpilz> Roberto: (missed his point)
16:21:47 <Zakim> +??P12
16:21:59 <gpilz> John: If you're a WSDL 2.0 implementation and you provide an API that allows you to build a component model at some point you need to validate that model.
16:22:32 <gpilz> ... If the only way you can do this is via schema validation, that means you need to generate the infoset then run it through a validating parser.
16:22:40 <gpilz> Roberto: agrees
16:23:27 <gpilz> Phillipe: Also, removing these two assertions basically remove them from peoples understanding. The assertions exist in the schema but that's the only place you would see them.
16:23:51 <gpilz> John: Not really sufficient to simply describe the assertions in the schema.
16:24:06 <Zakim> + +1.617.475.aacc
16:24:10 <gpilz> Jonathan: Are you concluding that the endpoints are not constrained to be unique?
16:24:23 <Zakim> -TonyR
16:24:28 <gpilz> John: Its not sufficient to express this constraint solely in the schema.
16:24:33 <gpilz> q+
16:24:56 <TonyR> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:24:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see Gilbert_Pilz, Roberto_, alewis, Allen_Brookes, Plh, hughesj, [Canon], ??P12, +1.617.475.aacc
16:26:43 <gpilz> Jonathan: The assertion failure will never be reported by schema validation alone since the XML doc will fail during validation!
16:28:18 <gpilz> Johnathan: We don't have all the assertions that are implemented by the schema reflected in the spec. We should be consistent and remove the first assertion.
16:28:21 <Zakim> -Allen_Brookes
16:28:35 <gpilz> Phillipe: We should be consistent.
16:28:57 <gpilz> ... If there is a general rule, we should state what it is.
16:29:07 <gpilz> John: I agree that we should be consistent.
16:29:43 <gpilz> ... If there is a WSDL 2.0 API that allows you to build up the component model programatically, is there a way to validate w/out serializing then parsing?
16:29:52 <gpilz> ... Not if you take these assertions out.
16:30:37 <gpilz> ... The idea of having assertions implemented via schema works fine if you always start from a WSDL 2.0 document.
16:31:19 <gpilz> ... Suppose, instead, you start with some WSDL 2.0 authoring tool. You build up the descritpion component, by component. What happens when you want to validate
16:32:00 <gpilz> ... your component model. If you remove these assertions then it is possible (likely) that these constraints will be missed unless the ONLY way of validating
16:32:23 <gpilz> ... is to serialize the component model as a WSDL 2.0 document and run it through a validating parser.
16:32:57 <gpilz> Jonathan: This is an artifact of the way we test WSDL 2.0 assertions. We always start with a WSDL 2.0 document then run it through a parser. These assertions can never be
16:33:34 <gpilz> ... violated using that process since the document will fail schema validation before you ever get to checking assertions.
16:35:05 <gpilz> John: If you rely on schema validation to report errors, the same error may be reported in different ways depending upon what parser you are using.
16:35:49 <gpilz> Jonathan: If we remove the asssertion markup from these statements . . .
16:35:59 <gpilz> John: There are others as well . . 
16:36:28 <gpilz> Jonathan: If we continue to write test cases we will find other assertions for which we cannot write test cases.
16:36:53 <gpilz> ... We could also simply review the specs and try to find more.
16:37:12 <TonyR> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:37:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see Gilbert_Pilz, Roberto_, alewis, Plh, hughesj, [Canon], ??P12, +1.617.475.aacc
16:37:33 <Zakim> -??P12
16:38:28 <Zakim> +??P6
16:38:30 <alewis> is our schema normative?
16:38:47 <gpilz> John: How do you write test cases to violate the rules in the schema if some/most of those rules aren't expressed as assertions?
16:39:15 <JonathanMarsh> JonathanMarsh has joined #ws-desc
16:40:39 <gpilz> Jonathan: We don't. All of our test cases start from well-formed, schema-valid documents.
16:41:46 <gpilz> John: Should we raise an issue to read the spec looking for assertions that violate schema?
16:42:10 <gpilz> Jonathan: Yes, but we need to find a volunteer (outlines scope of work)
16:42:43 <gpilz> John: I'm not sure if the green tests in the coverage report can be ignored.
16:43:24 <gpilz> Jonathan: The green tests mean that Lawerence was able to write a WSDL that passed schema validation and violated the assertion.
16:43:40 <gpilz> John: But Woden doesn't necessarily stop when schema validation fails.
16:44:27 <gpilz> Jonathan: But Lawernce doesn't check in the test case if it fails schema validation.
16:44:40 <gpilz> John: Ah. So that leaves some 60 assertions to check.
16:44:55 <gpilz> Jonathan: I suggest we fix the ones we know about and fix others as we find them.
16:45:08 <gpilz> ... We just need to remove the "assertion" markup.
16:45:37 <gpilz> ... Don't think it would be the end of the world if we remove the assertion markup.
16:46:09 <gpilz> John: Endpoint-0065, InterfaceFault-0032, InterfaceOperation--0035
16:46:38 <gpilz> John: What about Interface--0030?
16:47:37 <gpilz> Jonathan: No this isn't because its refering to an interface from another document.
16:47:57 <gpilz> ... Both documents could be schema-valid but combined they would validate the assertion.
16:48:18 <gpilz> Resolved: Remove assertion markup from Endpoint-0065, InterfaceFault-0032, InterfaceOperation--0035
16:48:35 <gpilz> Topic: CR123
16:48:49 <gpilz> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR123
16:48:55 <jjm> jjm has joined #ws-desc
16:48:57 <Zakim> +??P7
16:49:07 <Allen> zakim, ??P7 is Allen
16:49:07 <Zakim> +Allen; got it
16:49:13 <jjm> rrsagent, where am i?
16:49:13 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2007/01/18-ws-desc-irc#T16-49-13
16:49:17 <gpilz> Jonathan: This is one of Youenn's
16:49:25 <gpilz> Youenn: (reviews the issue)
16:50:09 <plh> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#_http_binding_default_rule_method
16:50:16 <gpilz> John: If safety is not engaged, couldn't it be GET or POST?
16:50:37 <gpilz> Youenn: In the HTTP binding there are rules to tell you whether to use GET or POST.
16:51:11 <gpilz> ... The safety extension is pretty cheap. We should state that generally, when you engage the HTTP binding you should also enage the safety extension.
16:51:40 <gpilz> ... Woden and Canon both implement both of these so there isn't a problem.
16:52:27 <gpilz> Jonathan: So we just have a statement when we introduce the HTTP binding saying that supporting the safety extension is a pre-condition to supporting the HTTP binding?
16:52:30 <gpilz> Youenn: Yes.
16:53:27 <youenn> youenn has joined #ws-desc
16:54:07 <gpilz> Yoenn: When we use the SOAP binding with HTTP extensions, what is the effect (if any) on the safety extension?
16:54:30 <gpilz> ... Do we also mandate support of the safety extension?
16:54:51 <gpilz> Jonathan: I would say no because the HTTP method property is not a property of the SOAP binding.
16:55:18 <gpilz> John: (clarifies)
16:55:52 <gpilz> Phillipe: What happens in the case of the SOAP response MEP when SOAP is using HTTP?
16:56:13 <gpilz> Jonathan: The SOAP response MEP, when bound to HTTP, must use a GET.
16:56:30 <gpilz> Resolution: Close CR123 by adopting Youenn's proposal.
16:57:31 <gpilz> John: Was the proposal we just adopted about mandating the use of safety if binding type is HTTP? It looks like its already mandatory?
16:57:47 <gpilz> Jonathan: Right now its an extension and all extensions are optional.
16:57:57 <gpilz> Topic: CR124
16:58:12 <gpilz> Jonathan: This one is already done.
16:58:26 <gpilz> Resolution: Close with editorial actions that have already occured.
16:58:31 <gpilz> Topic: CR125
16:59:36 <gpilz> Jonathan: This one looks editorial. The pattern attribute is always required. We need to fix the misleading  "defaulting" language.
17:00:20 <gpilz> ???: Didn't Arthur fixed this already?
17:00:37 <gpilz> Jonathan: Could be. The end result is the same.
17:00:45 <plh> a/???/Amy/
17:00:48 <plh> s/???/Amy/
17:01:02 <gpilz> John: That means taking out the "otherwise" bit in the ???
17:01:32 <gpilz> Amy: The idea was that we weren't going to require people to explicity put the attribute in.
17:03:25 <JonathanMarsh> Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Dec/0038.html
17:03:58 <JonathanMarsh> + add ? to the pseudo-syntax.
17:04:09 <JonathanMarsh> + change the schema
17:04:13 <JonathanMarsh> + change the interchange format
17:05:51 <gpilz> Resolution: Close CR125 by adopting Amy's proposal mod the above changes.
17:06:28 <gpilz> Topic: CR126
17:07:43 <gpilz> Jonathan: (reviews issue)
17:08:39 <gpilz> John: Do we have any other statements like this which talk about the document as a whole?
17:08:47 <gpilz> Jonathan: I think we do.
17:11:37 <TonyR> RESOLUTION: close CR126 with the proposal in the issue
17:11:38 <gpilz> ... For example Schema-0018
17:11:53 <gpilz> TOPIC: CR127
17:12:02 <gpilz> Youenn: (reviews issue)
17:13:52 <gpilz> Jonathan: Related to CR134. They're pretty much the same thing. I have a proposal for CR134.
17:14:43 <gpilz> John: Could you review CR134?
17:14:52 <gpilz> Jonathan: (reviews CR134)
17:15:02 <gpilz> q+
17:15:16 <Zakim> -Plh
17:18:05 <gpilz> q-
17:18:32 <gpilz> John: So the proposal is to add advice to the primer?
17:18:46 <gpilz> Jonathan: Yes. We've discussed this at length.
17:18:59 <gpilz> ... Is this a sufficient proposal for CR127?
17:19:31 <gpilz> Youenn: Yes. I also think that it might be good if Woden was able to warn people when such situations may occur.
17:19:50 <gpilz> Jonathan: That would be useful. You might want to consider that as a product feature.
17:20:02 <gpilz> John: You could turn this into a warning assertion.
17:20:39 <gpilz> Jonathan: We've had sufficient debate around adding normative text around operation dispatch. We don't want to go there . . .
17:21:30 <gpilz> ... This proposal matches the behavior you get "out of the box" with the HTTP binding
17:21:57 <gpilz> RESOLUTION: Close issues CR127 and CR134 with Jonthan's proposal for CR134
17:22:16 <gpilz> TOPIC: CR128
17:22:34 <gpilz> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR128
17:24:48 <gpilz> Roberto: The last sentence in the issue doesn't seem to relate to the previous exposition.
17:25:04 <gpilz> John: The implied question is how interface extension works.
17:25:22 <gpilz> Jonathan: Arthur already replied to Cindy.
17:26:43 <gpilz> ... There are really two questions; does "extension" including things extended by the thing you extended? The other question is about the use
17:27:03 <gpilz> ... multiple extends attribute.
17:27:43 <gpilz> John: We could fix the first by changing the wording to "extends directly or indirectly"
17:28:13 <jkaputin> The set of operations available in an interface includes all the operations 
17:28:13 <jkaputin> defined by the interfaces it extends directly or indirectly, along with any operations it directly 
17:28:13 <jkaputin> defines
17:29:13 <JonathanMarsh> s/along/together
17:29:22 <jkaputin> The set of operations available in an interface includes all the operations 
17:29:22 <jkaputin> defined by the interfaces it extends directly or indirectly, together with any operations it directly 
17:29:22 <jkaputin> defines
17:29:32 <gpilz> RESOLUTION: Close CR128 with above changes
17:29:56 <alewis> alewis has left #ws-desc
17:30:18 <Zakim> -alewis
17:31:54 <jkaputin> clarify visibility of schema components and ensure the spec is clear
17:32:06 <Zakim> -hughesj
17:32:07 <Zakim> -Gilbert_Pilz
17:32:07 <Zakim> -Allen
17:32:10 <Zakim> -??P6
17:32:11 <Zakim> -Roberto_
17:32:12 <Zakim> -[Canon]
17:32:15 <Zakim> - +1.617.475.aacc
17:32:16 <Zakim> WS_DescWG()11:00AM has ended
17:32:17 <Zakim> Attendees were Gilbert_Pilz, +028207aaaa, Allen_Brookes, +1.415.268.aabb, alewis, Roberto_, Jonathan, Plh, TonyR, hughesj, [Canon], +1.617.475.aacc, Allen
17:33:37 <TonyR> TonyR has left #ws-desc
17:38:57 <JonathanMarsh> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:38:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/01/18-ws-desc-minutes.html JonathanMarsh
17:41:56 <JonathanMarsh> Meeting: WS Description WG telcon
17:42:06 <JonathanMarsh> Chair: Jonathan
17:42:12 <JonathanMarsh> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:42:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/01/18-ws-desc-minutes.html JonathanMarsh
19:25:46 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ws-desc
20:20:26 <plh> rrsagent, bye
20:20:26 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/18-ws-desc-actions.rdf :
20:20:26 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jonathan to factor multipart out of MessageTest-2G [1]
20:20:26 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/18-ws-desc-irc#T15-20-50