Minutes for Nineteenth OGSI-WG Teleconference February 5, 2003 @ 18:00 - 20:00 GMT Karl Czajkowski, ISI Shel Finkelstein, Sun Dave Snelling, Fujitsu Steve Tuecke, ANL Pete Vanderbilt, NASA Andera Westerinen, Cisco 1) Approved minutes of February 3rd Teleconference 2) Review of ServiceGroup Section. Specific identified questions: a- Do we need a definition of GSH or Locator equivalence as a basic UniquenessRule? Resolved: Only null equivalence in the spec. Do we need to specify what the ÒrequiredÓ set of UniquenessRules might be? Resolved: No required set of rules required. b- Shouldn't the UniquenessRule apply to the content (as well as to the locator)? Resolved: UniquenessRule is not limited to Locator or Content only. Anything goes. c- Should we do an XPath expression for Locator equality or equivalence or just plain language semantics? Resolved: No: Answered above. e- Since the text talks about comparing locators, shouldn't that concept be defined? What's the definition? Is it general enough that it might go in section 7.5.3? Resolved: No: Answered above. f- The same pattern may be needed by developers wanting to include UniquenessRules. At present it just says a QName, so we can implement it as just plain language, but someday we may need more. Do we point the way now? Resolved: UniquenessRule should be element rather than QName. g- Check min/maxOccurs, mutibility etc. (e.g. ContentModelType mutability=extends?) Resolved: Change it to static, which follows the general pattern elsewhere. Resolved: The Content is the QName of the element of the Content SDE of the entry. h- Do we need to define "coherent" with respect to the Entry and the SD of the SGEntry? Resolved: The word coherent is too strong. Find looser language that allows the two views to differ for a while. 2a) General discussion on the approach to capturing both the argument type (possible with just a QName) and some of the semantics in the form of an element. This is a powerful concept, but do we really need it in the spec. Action: Steve T to do a proposal for a more general solution to parameterized typing following the Uniqueness Rule model. 2b) Resolved: ServiceGroupEntryType: Text to say it MUST be a sub type of ServiceGroupEntry. NB: nil implies ServiceGroupEntry. 3) Review Faults Section - Not discussed on the call. Meta Issue: From Steve T: The biggest comment/issue that I see is that our model of having each fault reflected in a WSDL fault element in the operation declaration won't work for extensible operations such as FindServiceData. Should we go back to having just a single fault in the WSDL operation of type GridServiceFaultType, which is extended as necessary? Questions: a- Multiple errors in an operation? - Dave S would recommend that the "first" error be the primary error & others form part of the extensibility element, which may be a sequence of GridServiceFaults. Not this is not the same thing as the "cause" element. b- Should there be an AuthorizationFalut? c- Can a Grid service throw a more general fault than a published fault, e.g throw SemanticFault, rather than SubscriptionTargetNotFound? d- In the fault of 6.2.2, what does "the value" refer to in the case of a multi-valued SDE? Is it talking about one SDE value or the whole set? Should "the value" be replaced by "one of the values"? - Dave S would recommend that, as above, the "first" error be the primary error, all others coming in the extensibility element. The extensibility element could also indicate which SDE was in error. e- What's the difference between the fault s IncompatibleValueType and IncorrectValue? Is the intent that IncompatibleValueType indicates a syntactic violation while IncorrectValue indicates a semantic one? See Set Service Data f- Should we define an fault meaning "violates service constraints" or perhaps IncorrectValue would suffice. See Set Service Data. g- Needed additional faults (see note from GT3 group below) Yes or No. GridService:findServiceData:, InvalidQuery (semantic), QueryNotSupported (structural) NotificationSource:subscribe: SubscriptionTargetNotFound - (semantic -assuming this means the target service cannot be found, rather than a missing locator) h- What about DeliverNotification in the NotificationSink portType, which is a single sided operation, i.e. it does not produce an output message. Can it raise GridServiceFaults? If no, there are several MUSTs in the text that need to be changed to SHOULDs. i- Are the min/maxOccurs, etc. correct? j- Do we want fault numbers? k- Do we want serial numbers? 4) Consolidated Actions Review Action: 50, 63, 68, 69: Feb 07: ---- -: Discuss of Section 13 ServiceGroup DONE: These bugs are all resolved by the ServiceGroup. Action: ---: Feb 07: ---- --: Discussion of fault architecture (See Section 7.7) - Pending Action: ---: Feb 05: Steve T: Use gwsdl and ogsi namespace names in spec DONE Action: ---: Feb 05: Steve G: Draft of GWSDL definitions (See Section 5) - Pending Action: 55: Feb 05: Shel F: Provide feedback on timestamp model in OASIS, we plan to punt to v1.1 - Pending Action: 35: Feb 06: Steve T: Push Tom M. and Thomas S. to provide XML Schema and WSDL for the specification - Pending Action: 17 & 82: --- --: Steve G: Finish the handle resolver protocol discussion (See Section 10) - Pending Action: ---: --- --: Steve G: Create non-normative text for the service data section describing forward looking solutions to query processing via XPath/XQuery. (Sections 9.2.1.2/3, 6.2.1, 9.2.3) - Pending Action: 93, 94: --- --: Steve T: Check and fix these bugzilla items - Pending Action: Steve T: Substitute service data description with service data declaration. - Pending Action: Steve T: some types use "ServiceType", and some use "GridServiceType". Make these consistent - Pending Action: 19: --- --: Steve T: Check as this bug has been resolved already. May just need to remove highlighting. (Section 12.2.1) - Pending Action: ---: --- --: Steve T: Make sure that the WSDL group is aware of the OGSI's use of the WSDL 1.2 draft. Use the gwsdl draft to package notification. - Pending Action: 42: --- --: ----- -: Andrea & Steve T & Dave: Complete the faults for all operations in all portTypes (Action on Feb 5). - Pending Action: 67: --- --: ----- -: Check that draft schema support optional parameters, e.g. empty extensibility, See Section 9, and resolved bug 67. Options: Define a element that can go into a ##any, or use substitution group, or use XSD nillable - Pending Action: ---: --- --: Karl C: Discuss Service data redirection. See mail -> Thu Dec 12, 2002: [ogsi-wg] find service data "links" in service data values? RESOLVED: Push this out to v1.1 Action: ---: --- --: ---- -: Discuss Set Service Data - Not sure what this is. - Drop 5) Next Meeting: Monday, Feb 10, 2003 (Note 2 hours). 08:30-10:30 US Pacific 09:30-11:30 US Mountain 10:30-12:30 US Central 11:30-13:30 US Eastern 15:30-17:30 GMT 16:30-18:30 UK 17:30-19:30 Central Europe 00:30-02:30 Japan Place: 484-630-8733 passcode 89914 6) Open Bugzilla list: Notification Bugs: Bug 43 - The specialization of the DeliverNotification operation Concern: This is a heavy onus on tooling, as it basically forces service to support a DII interface. If you go this route, you probably also want to allow the client to thread through an additional argument. Can get roughly the same effect by creating a light- weight service that accepts DeliverNotification for a particular purpose. RESOLUTION: (by Pete, Karl, Shel, Steve T, Andrea) Drop this argument in v1. In v1.1 reconsider this along with threading through a user argument. [Dave: I agree.] Bug 61 - Provide notification of destuction in the GSS Bug 66 - Allow modification of NotificationSubscriptions RESOLUTION: (by Karl, Pete, Steve T) On NotificationSubscription portType, change SubscriptionExpression and SinkLocator SDEs to be mutability="mutable". This allows for domain specific extensions to NotificationSubscription that allows for modification of subscription expressions. Defer standard way to do modification to v1.1. There are a lot of subleties to getting this right, and it is not pressing enough to delay v1. [Dave: I'm OK with this.] Action: Steve T: Change these SDEs to mutability="mutable" STOPPED HERE Bug ?? - Deliver with ack issue?? Bug ?? - Review Notification status and language (was an agenda item). WSDL Bugs: Bug 62 - Do we need a way to mark operations in a portType optional? Factory Bugs: Bug 72 - mutability of gsdl:CreatesPortTypes and CreationInputTypes Bug 73 - Factory::CreateService requester as SDE? Bug 74 - strictness of gsdl:CreatesPortTypes commentary Misc Bugs: Bug 70 - Change SDE names from "...Types" to "...Elements" Bug 39 - message identifier for audit Bug 77 - serviceDataNames minOccurs should be 7 Bug 30 - Define queryByXPath Bug 31 - Define queryByXQuery Bug 44 - Language linking notification subscriptions to SDEs. Bug 71 - CPU port-type example SDE inconsistent Bug 81 - GSS and WS-SD need unification.