1. Role Call
2. Confirm scribe
The following is a list of recent scribes (in order): 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 2nd September 2003
4.Action Item Review
Actions from last week marked with *
Organisational
ACTION: Chairs, Oversee the organisation of the task forces.
ACTION*: MC to send draft F2F agenda
ACTION*: Discuss F2F in Dec next meeting
Usecases/requirements
ACTION: David Burdett to provide a design collaboration use case.
ACTION: Martin to propose text for call-back use case.
ACTION*: SRT to send most recent requirements spreadsheet to the list
BurdettML
ACTION: DB to produce a commentary on how Burdett ML meets (or not) the current requirements.
LATEST: Ongoing to determine if this meets our requirements and identify gaps. Analysis paper will be finished by David Burdett prior to the September meeting and he will try to post beforehand.
Issues
ACTION: SRT to send mail to the Semantics tag as to what he is looking for to initiate the discussion on semantics in the WS-Choreography language.
LATEST (NEW 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*: Group will review Bugzilla issues list
5. Standing tracking items (a section designed to ensure that longer running items are properly tracked)
-Requirements next steps (progress/review)
.Mission Statement
. CSF Analysis
. Use cases
. Requirements listing
- Issue tracking (progress/review)
. Major issues to report
- Task forces next steps (progress/review)
. Task list. Membership
6. Face2Face in Seattle
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2003Sep/att-0009/SEPT03_F2F_DRAFT_AGENDA.htm
7.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. AOB.
|
Chairs |
|
|
Enigmatec |
|
|
Oracle |
|
|
W3C Staff Contacts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attendees:
|
BEA Systems |
|
|
Choreology Ltd |
|
|
Commerce One |
|
|
Fujitsu Ltd |
|
|
Hitachi, Ltd. |
|
|
Intalio Inc. |
|
|
Nortel
Networks |
|
|
Novell |
|
|
SAP AG |
|
|
SeeBeyond
Technology Corporation |
|
|
Software AG |
|
|
Sun
Microsystems, Inc. |
|
|
Sun
Microsystems, Inc. |
|
|
TIBCO Software |
|
|
Oracle
Corporation |
|
|
Attachmate |
· Raw IRC log at: http://www.w3.org/2003/09/09-ws-chor-irc (TO BE CHECKED)
Jean-Jacques Dubray, of Attachmate. kindly volunteered to scribe for the meeting.
The following is a list of recent scribes (in order): 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
Minutes 2nd September 2003. Approved.
Actions from last week (2nd Sep 2003) marked with *
Organisational
ACTION:
Chairs, Oversee the organization of the task forces.
ON GOING
ACTION*:
MC to send draft F2F agenda
- DONE (see below)
ACTION*:
Discuss F2F in Dec next meeting
- DONE
Usecases/requirements
ACTION:
David Burdett to provide a design collaboration use case.
- NO PROGRESS
ACTION:
Martin to propose text for call-back use case.
- DEFERRED TO Seattle F2F
ACTION*:
SRT to send most recent requirements spreadsheet to the list
- NO PROGRESS
BurdettML
ACTION: DB to produce a commentary on how Burdett ML meets (or not) the current requirements.
LATEST: Ongoing to determine if this meets our requirements and identify gaps.
Analysis paper will be finished by David Burdett prior to the September meeting
and he will try to post beforehand.
- ON GOING
NEW ACTION: David will deliver BurdettML proposal
Issues
ACTION: SRT to send mail to the Semantics tag as to what he is looking for to initiate the discussion on semantics in the WS-Choreography language.
LATEST (NEW 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*:
Group will review Bugzilla issues list
MC pointed out
that it would be very useful if people would come forward at the f2f to pull
out issues they are interested in.
NEW ACTION: We should start using bugzilla effectively. This will be on the agenda for the next meeting.
-Requirements next steps (progress/review)
SRT pointed out
that Daniel is not on the call, he also will not be at the f2f.
NEW
ACTION: Members of the group must read the requirements Document before
the F2F.
MC pointed out that we
should defer all requirement work and discussion to the f2f.
- Issue tracking (progress/review)
- Task forces next steps (progress/review)
NEW ACTION: Address the requirements with respect to the taskforces at the Seattle F2F. Chairs to place on agenda. We need to reconcile the requirements with the taskforces at the f2f, since they are implementing the requirements.
MC: We could
move liaison discussion to accomodate Tony's presentation on BCS
Monica: Are
we going to talk about liaison in general?
MC: Yes, we
have only set up one at the moment. We could talk about other liaisons. One of
the taskforces are required to look at other work (BCF)
MC: There are several forms of liaising, it is not
just a harvesting activity, but also understand what the relationship should be.
At the taskforce level, harvesting is enough
MC: The
location should be Bellevue and not Belmont.
NEW ACTION: SRT to change the location from Belmont to Bellevue.
SRT: I hear no
other changes of the agenda.
MC: We need to
talk about Dial-in to the f2f. Are there any specific timeslots? Should the
bridge be open all the time?
NEW
ACTION: Members should send an email about dial-in requirements so
that we can organize it ahead of time.
CM: F2F
conflicts with sun network conference so I will not attend or dial in.
SRT: Lets move
to the December F2F: the main issue is where? Currently it is Australia for the
week of the 15th of December
SRT: Another
issue is that BPEL will probably not be in Australia.
SRT: There is also another possibility to do it in
Philadelphia along with XML 2003 conference
MC: We need concrete offers to host the meeting
YL: Remember the 8 weeks rule
MC: There is some requirements to go outside the US
since all the meetings have happened in the US
MC: So far, we only have one offer
YL: I would be happy to go to australia, as I will be in japan at
roughly the same time
SRT: What about
Sophia Antipolis?
CM: Australia sounds
good to me
YL: There will be a
technical plenary on February so it would cover Europe at that time.
CM: Sophia would be great
- Web Service awareness of choreography First in thread, latest
DB: if you have
a web service that can behave in a predictable/deterministic way then it can
take part in a choreography. However, most services have to be choreography
aware since one can have complex and content based behavior
ChairNote: Segway into Correlation (I think)
-Correlation requirements
FM: architecture
should not require that choreography data be embedded in the messages
FM: the reason
for having a CDL is to help designers and architects to put together their
systems. In this case, the choreography management is already implemented in
the ws agent
YG: all parties
negotiate before hand because the code base is very brittle
YG: the scope: a
spec is done when there is nothing left to "cut"
YG: variably of
the choreography can be dealt with at the application layer
YG: we don't try
to specify which branch of choreography is going to happen
JD: there is a
point that keeps getting lost. At the implementation level you have a need for correlation
id
YG: hear hear!
JD: ws-addressing
would fulfill the requirements for this for instance this is part of a service
description, WSDL and its extension mechanism can be used to describe how the
parties are communicating. We should be able to punt this problem. It is at a
different level.
DB: not
suggesting to develop negotiation protocols
YG: thinks the
feature can wait until V2.
YG: also thinks
that in practice the URI you are talking to specifies which choreography you
are talking to.
DB: Once we have
a choreography definition, it would be useful, to identify specific message content
that unambiguously determine which part of the choreography will happen
MC: the
requirements is that given an incoming message you can relate it back to a
message defined in the choreography definition
DB: if
correlation can be given by some other spec, this is great
YG: disagrees,
the URI binding can specify the choreography so there is no ambiguity.
DB: we cannot
"punt" on the problem, we have to related how other specs can be used
in the context of ws-chor
JD: not
specifying things allows for layering, which is good ..
TF: If you use
CD at design time, you don't need to use it at run-time
TF: Need to
identify what instance a message relates to.
TF: so the
fundamental problem is how a CD is actually used
FM: A large
driver for CDL is at design time. But not ruling out to use it at run-time
FM: a large
fraction of the value should be come from non choreography aware systems.
MC: there is a
need at some level to express the decisions you make at the deployment level
MC: we have to
have a way of anotating the CDL to capture this information
MC: there is
going to come a point where we need to do everything that's needed in 18 months
SRT: "what
it is you bind to" needs to be specified. Kind of dynamic MDA
TF: two
different ways of achieving interoperability
TF: 1) keep it
simple ("cut" as much options as you can)
TF: 2) ebXML,
there is a situation like BPSS can be used at design and run-time.
TF: BPSS has a
lot of variability, the way this is solved is buy separating the CD from the
implementation binding (specified in the CPPA)
SRT: would be
nice to be express the binding at a higher level, express what the requirements
are for execution
DB: Middleware
needs to identify when a message comes in: a) CDL, b)... c) which instance of the
choreography it is related too
DB: CDL should
be able to use at run-time, therefore, we should specify run-time specific
parameters
MM: CPPA is
currently defining WSDL definitions
MM: this could
be used for ws-chor
MC: we need to
focuss back on requirements, look at what we need for version 1 and defer
fansier features to later
ChairNote: Not sure we got to this item from the notes above.
- Simultaneous executionFirst in thread, latest-Off topic (catch all) First in thread, latest
NEW ACTION: Directions to attachmate MC/JJD
NEW ACTIONS
NEW ACTION: David will deliver
BurdettML proposal
NEW ACTION: We should start using
bugzilla effectively. This will be on the agenda for the next meeting.
NEW ACTION: Members of the group must
read the requirements Document before the F2F.
NEW ACTION: Address the requirements with respect to the taskforces at the Seattle
F2F. Chairs to place on agenda. We
need to reconcile the requirements with the taskforces at the f2f, since they
are implementing the requirements.
NEW ACTION: SRT to change the location from Belmont to Bellevue.
NEW ACTION: Members should send an
email about dial-in requirements so that we can organize it ahead of time.
NEW ACTION: Directions to attachmate MC/JJD
ACTIONS FROM LAST WEEK
ACTION*:
MC to send draft F2F agenda
-
DONE Draft
Agenda
ACTION*:
Discuss F2F in Dec next meeting
- DONE
ACTION*:
SRT to send most recent requirements spreadsheet to the list
- NO PROGRESS
ACTION*:
Group will review Bugzilla issues list.
OLDER ACTIONS
ACTION:
Chairs, Oversee the organization of the task forces.
ON GOING
ACTION:
David Burdett to provide a design collaboration use case.
- NO PROGRESS
ACTION:
Martin to propose text for call-back use case.
- DEFERRED TO Seattle F2F
ACTION:
DB to produce a commentary on how Burdett ML meets (or not) the current
requirements.
ACTION:
SRT to send mail to the Semantics tag as to what he is looking for to initiate
the discussion on semantics in the WS-Choreography language.
LATEST (NEW 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.