[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes for 08 May 2003 Meeting
Meeting started at 8:05 PST
====================================================================
Roll Call
Voting Members:
---------------------------------
Alejandro Abdelnur Sun yes
Sasha Aickin Plumtree no
Subbu Allamaraju BEA no
Olin Atkinson Novell yes
Atul Batra Sun yes
Amir Blich SAP yes
Rex Brooks Starbourne yes
T.J. Cox Novell yes
William Cox BEA no
Brian Dirking Stellent yes
Michael Freedman Oracle yes
Ross Fubini Plumtree no
Richard Jacob IBM no
Jon Klein Reed-Elsevier yes
Andre Kramer Citrix yes
Alan Kropp Vignette Corporation yes
Carsten Leue IBM yes
Dan Machak Tibco yes
Petr Palas Moravia IT no
Sunit Randhawa Fujitsu no
Nigel Ratcliffe Factiva no
Joe Rudnicki U.S. Navy no
Thomas Schaeck IBM yes
Gennady Shumaker SAP yes
Steven Smith Capitol College yes
Yossi Tamari SAP Portals yes
Rich Thompson IBM yes
Eric van Lydegraf Kinzan no
Charles Wiecha IBM yes
Total voting members: 30
Voting members in attendance: 19 (63%)
A quorum was present.
Members on Leave Of Absence
----------------------------
Chris Braun Novell LOA (for next 45 days)
Prospective Members (non-voting):
---------------------------------
Michael Bosch Vignette yes
Christopher Coco Vignette no
Winston Damarillo GlueCode Software no
Noah Guyot Vignette yes
David Holladay Microsoft yes
Dimitri Jirov yes
WSIA Members (non-voting):
-----------------------------
Ravi Konuru IBM yes
====================================================================
The minutes from 4/24/03 were accepted
====================================================================
Agenda for F2F
Michael - Would like to intermix the breakout sessions throughout
the 3 days instead of having them at the end.
Alejandro will reserve an additional room on Monday and
Tuesday afternoon to support breakout session then.
Rich - Wants to add an item for looking at sub-committee calls.
====================================================================
Organization issues
Thomas will resign as chairman. A new chairman will be chosen at
the F2F.
It will also be necessary to choose a new secretary at the F2F.
Dan Machak, the current secretary cannot attend the F2F. He has
agreed to be secretary at the next F2F, so the term of the new
secretary will begin with the Grenoble F2F, and end just prior
to the following F2F.
Voting issues will be address around 3:15-4:00 (Grenoble time).
9 hour difference with the US west coast.
Alejandro will make dinner reservations in Grenoble.
====================================================================
Statements of use
Thomas currently has 3 statements of use, which is the minimum
number. It would still be better to have more
====================================================================
Errata Summary:
#1 Include Atul Batra in Appendix D.2 ACCEPTED
#2 Change version to 1.0 ACCEPTED
#3 WSDL - Drop intf: prefix ACCEPTED
#4 Comparison of Consumer to "message switch" ACCEPTED
#5 Consumer is a user-agent NOT ACCEPTED
#6 Which IDL is our IDL-like syntax? NOT ACCEPTED
#7 Change "emerging standard" language re: WS-I ACCEPTED
#8 Change description of JSR 168 ACCEPTED
#9 Reword reccomendation on ID Types ACCEPTED
#10 Fix hyperlinks in section 14 ACCEPTED
#11 WSDL error involving xml:lang NOT ACCEPTED
#12 Missing "wsr-" prefix on interactionState in example ACCEPTED
#13 Change Extenstion type from "any[]" to "any" ACCEPTED
#14 Clarificatin on use of extensions ACCEPTED
#15 Clarify use of registrationPropertiesDescription ACCEPTED
====================================================================
#1. 4/24/03 (Atul Batra)
If it's not too late, could you please include my name in
Appendix D.2 of the specification titled "WSRP Committee Members"
Document: Spec
Section: D.2
New Text: Atul Batra*, Sun Microsystems
Resolution: Accepted
====================================================================
#2. 4/24/03 (Rich Thompson)
Version coming out of the public review period should be our 1.0
Document: Spec & wsdl
Section: Property (shows in header and page 1).
Also in wsdl and xsd file comments.
Old Text: 0.95
New Text: 1.0
Resolution: Accepted
====================================================================
#3. 4/24/03 (Claus Von Riegen)
Our WSDL uses qualified names to reference portType fault operations
from soap:fault elements. Taking the following WSDL fragment (that
is part of a wsdl:operation, which in turn is part of a wsdl:binding)
as an example,
<wsdl:fault name="AccessDenied">
<soap:fault name="intf:AccessDenied" use="literal"/>
</wsdl:fault>
The "intf:" prefix makes the WSDL document invalid against
the WSDL 1.1 schema, since the soap:fault name attribute is of
type NCName. Removing all occurrences of the "intf:" prefix should
resolve the issue.
Document: wsrp_v1_bindings.wsdl
Section: throughout
Old Text: <soap:fault name="intf:...
New Text: <soap:fault name="...
Resolution: Accepted
====================================================================
#4. 4/24/03 (William Cox)
Section 1.2.3 - Comment: The Consumer can also be viewed
(and is, indeed, so viewed by many) as a message switch, routing
the results of user interaction to the appropriate producer for
action ( if the consumer does not itself respond to the interaction).
We should consider mentioning this in a future draft.
Document: Spec
Section: 1.2.3
Old Text: and presents the aggregation to the End-User.
One typical Consumer is a portal,
New Text: and presents the aggregation to the End-User. Because of
this intermediary role, Consumers are often compared to
"message switches" that route messages between various
parties. One typical Consumer is a portal,
Resolution: Accepted.
====================================================================
#5. 4/24/03 (William Cox)
Section 1.2.3 - Comment: in ISO terminology, the
consumer is a sort of User Agent.
Document: Spec
Section: 1.2.3
Resolution: No Change. Even if this is technically true, it may
cause confusion with what people normally think of as a
user-agent.
====================================================================
#6. 4/24/03 (William Cox)
Section 3.2 and elsewhere - "an IDL-like syntax" begs the question
of "which IDL?" -- this is an editing nit, but got annoying after
the third or fourth time.
Document: Spec
Section: 3.2+
Old Text: IDL-like syntax
New Text: IDL style syntax
Resolution: No Change. We don't want to enforce conformance to any
particular IDL.
====================================================================
#7. 4/24/03 (William Cox)
Section 3.1.2: Why is WS-I.org listed as an "emerging standard"?
Given that the Basic Profile is out (which is one more spec than
WSRP has out so far :-) ), we should list the basic profile in
the Existing Standards list. It's OK to also list ws-i.org in the
"emerging standards" list with (say) security profile mentioned.
Document: Spec
Section: 3.1.2
Old Text: WS-I.org - Defines profiles for use of web services
standards such that interoperability is maximized.
New Text: WS-I.org - Defining additional profiles (e.g. Security)
for use of web services standards such that
interoperability is maximized.
Document: Spec
Section: 3.1.1
New Text: WS-I.org - Has defined a base profile for use of the
WSDL, SOAP and UDDI web services standards such that
interoperability is maximized.
Resolution: Accepted
====================================================================
#8. 4/24/03 (William Cox)
Section 3.1.2: "JSR168 – Java Community Process for standardizing
a portlet API." should be written "JSR 168 - a Java Community
Process effort for standardizing the Java Portlet Specification"
Document: Spec
Section: 3.1.2
Old Text: JSR168 - Java Community Process for standardizing
a portlet API.
New Text: JSR 168 - Java Community Process effort defining
the Java Portlet Specification.
Resolution: Accepted
====================================================================
#9. 4/24/03 (William Cox)
Section 5.1.4: "We STRONGLY RECOMMEND these characters be chosen
from the first 127 characters of the Unicode character set, so that
the length is no longer than 4096 characters regardless of whether
it is represented in Unicode, ASCII or a byte[]."
This sentence has several problems.
(1) the length of a 4096 character string, wchar or not, is
always 4096 characters. What you mean is 'length is no
longer than 4096 bytes.'
(2) byte[] should be written 'byte array'. So, rewritten,
it should read
"We STRONGLY RECOMMEND these characters be chosen from the
first 127 characters of the Unicode character set, so that
the space consumed is no greater than 4096 bytes regardless
of whether it is represented in Unicode, ASCII or a byte array."
Document: Spec
Section: 5.1.4
Old Text: We STRONGLY RECOMMEND these characters be chosen from
the first 127 characters of the Unicode character set,
so that the length is no longer than 4096 characters
regardless of whether it is represented in Unicode,
ASCII or a byte[].
New Text: We STRONGLY RECOMMEND these characters be chosen from
the first 127 characters of the Unicode character set,
so that no more than 4096 bytes of storage is required
regardless of whether it is represented in Unicode,
ASCII or a byte array.
Resolution: Accepted, will change the text: "....so that it is
feasible to represent the value in no
more than 4096 characters..."
====================================================================
#10. 4/24/03 (William Cox)
Section 14: The definitions look pretty much OK. The word
hyperlink didn't work (404) for the second two.
Document: Spec
Section: 14
Action: Fix target for the second two hyperlinks to match the
displayed text.
Resolution: Accepted.
====================================================================
#11. 4/24/03 (William Cox)
XML Spy complained that the first definition was invalid:
"Localized String -- Invalid - no attribute with name xml:lang
has been defined in this or in included/imported schemas.
(As part of another schema, it might still be OK)"
Document: WSDL
[RT] I'm not sure that this isn't a bug in XML Spy. We do import
the schema that defines xml:lang. It may be trying to dereference
this through a definition of the "xml" prefix to the actual
namespace (http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace), but this is
explicitly a prefix association that XML defines and declares as
not available for redefinition by the xmlns: method of associating
prefixes with namespaces.
Resolution: No Change. This is a bug in XML Spy.
====================================================================
#12. 4/24/03 (Andrew Wright <andrew.wright@oracle.com>)
I just noticed in 0.95 of the WSRP spec pg 64, ln 20, an URL
rewriting example is given as:
wsrp-rewrite?wsrp-urlType=blockingAction&wsrp-secureURL=true&
wsrp-navigationalState=a8h4K5JD9&interactionState=fg4h923mdk/wsrp-rewrite
I think it should be:
wsrp-rewrite?wsrp-urlType=blockingAction&wsrp-secureURL=true&
wsrp-navigationalState=a8h4K5JD9&wsrp-interactionState=fg4h923mdk/wsrp-rewrite
Document: Spec
Section: 10.2.1.8 (example 3)
Old Text: wsrp-rewrite?wsrp-urlType=blockingAction&
wsrp-secureURL=true&wsrp-navigationalState=a8h4K5JD9&
interactionState=fg4h923mdk/wsrp-rewrite
New Text: wsrp-rewrite?wsrp-urlType=blockingAction&
wsrp-secureURL=true&wsrp-navigationalState=a8h4K5JD9&
wsrp-interactionState=fg4h923mdk/wsrp-rewrite
Resolution: Accepted.
====================================================================
#13. 4/30/03 (Yossi Tamari)
Change definition of the Extension type:
Document: Spec
Section: 5.1.1
Old Text: [O] Object any[]
New Text: [O] Object any
Reason: The definition here is of a single Extension field,
not of the array. Anywhere else in the spec we use an
array of Extension ([O] Extension extensions[]). This
also matches our wsrp_v1_types.xsd better.
Resolution: Accepted
====================================================================
#14. 4/30/03 (Rich Thompson)
Change definition of the any field for the Extension type.
Several developers from various companies have emailed me
about the requirement that the extensions come from a non-WSRP
namespace. The question centers on how to then reuse the types
defined within the WSRP namespace. I suggest adding the following
sentence:
Document: Spec
Section: 5.1.1
New Text: While the element definitions for these extensions are
required to be in a namespace other than WSRP, the reuse
of the types defined within the WSRP namespace by those
definitions is encouraged as this increases the likelihood
of the receiving partner being able to deserialize the
extension in a useful manner.
Resolution: Accepted
====================================================================
#15. 5/5/03 (Rich Thompson)
This conformance statement refers to the
registrationPropertiesDescription field as required,
but the IDL and WSDL both say it is optional.
Document: Spec
Section: 5.2
Old Text: The minimum information a Producer MUST return from
getServiceDescription() is that which declares what
is required for a Consumer to register (i.e. the
requiresRegistration flag and the
registrationPropertyDescription field) with the
Producer [R300][R301][R303].
New Text: The minimum information a Producer MUST return from
getServiceDescription() is that which declares what is
required for a Consumer to register with the Producer
(i.e. the requiresRegistration flag and whenever additional
data is required, the optional
registrationPropertyDescription field) [R300][R301][R303].
Resolution: Accepted (the word 'optional' will be dropped)
====================================================================
Next Meeting:
F2F in Grenoble
====================================================================
Meeting officially adjourned at 9:00 AM PST
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]