[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]