2. Confirm scribe
The following is a list of recent scribes (in order): Monica Martin, Carol McDonald, Nick Kavantzas, Tony Fletcher, Mayilraj Krishnan, Francis McCabe, Jeff Mischkinsky, David Burdett ,John Dart, Monica Martin, Tony, Fletcher, Jim Hendler, Kevin Liu, Tony Fletcher, Jon Dart, David Burdett, Ed Peters, Greg Ritzinger, Monica Martin, Len Greski, Jean-Jacques Dubray, Monica Martin, Mayilraj Krishnan, Francis McCabe, Michael Champion, Abbie Barbir, David Burdett, Jon Dart, Carol McDonald, Yaron Goland, Leonard Greski, Ed Peters, Greg Ritzinger, Daniel Austin, Peter Furniss, Jim Hendler
3. Approve minutes
4. Action item review
Actions from previous meeting marked with *
ACTION : chairs look at WSA issues process and recommend whether it should be adopted by this group. recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/30-ws-chor-irc#T20-22-01 IN PROGRESS
ACTION: Steve to facilitate calling a Requirements / Use Case editors meeting. IN PROGRESS
NEW ACTION: This agenda item to be placed back on the agenda for next week assuming a succinct definition of transaction (see action above).
ACTION: Use Case proposers to highlight/extract any EAI specific aspects from their use cases. IN PROGRESS
ACTION: Chairs to reply to Marco requesting clarification of his use case recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/30-ws-chor-irc#T20-50-10 IN PROGRESS
ACTION: Steve: Will put all the comments on draft requirements above into the requirements spreadsheet and send out. NO PROGRESS - Awaiting latest spreadsheet from Daniel Austin..
ACTION: Editors of the requirements are directed to look at the issues list and filter each issue in a similar way to the filtering method used at the F2F. IN PROGRESS – See editors F2F
ACTION: Tony Fletcher will provide a good definition of transaction.
*ACTION: Nick to provide spreadsheet matching OracleML to requirements
ACTION : SRT Brought semantics question to the TAG. On chairs coordination call, he asked about semantics for/of choreography. A new Semantic Web Services Interest Group is being formed in about one month. Issue will be sent to that group when it is formed.
*ACTION: Steve RT will send a one-page summary of his thoughts.
ACTION : Tony to keep group updated on un/cefact recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/30-ws-chor-irc#T20-32-44
*ACTION: Tony Fletcher will mail to list for new site: www.unbcf.org/
ACTION : chairs to explore with UN/CEFECT whether a liaison is of mutual interest recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/30-ws-chor-irc#T20-33-04 IN PROGRESS (offline discussion between chairs)
5. Standing tracking items (a section designed to ensure that longer running items are properly tracked)
-Requirements – next steps (progress/review)
- Issue tracking (progress/review)
. Major issues to report
WS-BPEL – any major issues being reported?
BPSS – any developments on TC?
7. Proposed new use case
The following was submitted to the mail list:
Tony’s usecase for transactions (see action item above)
8.Threads (on the archive not covered elsewhere in the agenda)
- Web Service awareness of choreography
- Simultaneous execution
-Off topic (catch all)
8. Other topcis to discuss
The business case for choreography
Pretend you are talking to a CIO of a hard nosed company with lots of money. The CIO has only 2 or 3 minutes for you to explain why he/she should support/use/back Choreography. What would you explain are the business benefits of Choroegraphy?
To which the CIO responds and says “But I could just use WS-BPEL for this? What is different?”
Can each of the attendees give this matter some thought and either present it at the call or put it on the public list. What I am looking for is something like:
You should use Choroegraphy because it
1. It makes me money (in what way?)
2. It saves me money (in what way?)