1. Role Call
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
Minutes 7th October 2003
4. Action item review
Actions from previous meeting marked with *
Organisational
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).
Usecases/requirements
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.
BurdettML
OracleML
*ACTION: Nick to provide spreadsheet matching OracleML to
requirements
Issues
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.
Liason
activities
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
6. Liaison
WS-BPEL – any major
issues being reported?
BPSS – any developments on TC?
7. Proposed new use caseThe 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 First in thread, latest-Correlation requirements
First in thread, latest- Simultaneous executionFirst in thread, latest-Off topic (catch all) First in thread, latest8. 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?)9. AOB.