- From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:33:44 -0400
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
... are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/04/18-minutes
Text dump follows.
Regards,
Hugo
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
IRC log of ws-arch on 2002-04-18
Timestamps are in UTC.
[chrisf]
agenda+
[1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2002Apr/0062
.html
[hugo]
hugo has changed the topic to: WSAWG weekly telcon
[AlanD]
Alan Davies is scribe
[dbooth]
[2]http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/04/f2f-minutes
[AlanD]
Minutes of f2f - no objections to publication, after date is
corrected
[hugo]
ACTION: Hugo to fix the dates in the minutes and publish them
[AlanD]
4. Review of action items
[hugo]
DONE: * ACTION: Editorsannotate goal 01 and 011 in document as
draft.
DONE: * ACTION: WG email out sub-group notes
DONE: ACTION: Chris, figure out how to get more members on IRC
DONE: ACTION: Editors: Rename D-AG0006 into AG-0006
ACTION: DavidO: Send updated version of DAG0010 to the public
list and say that it was accepted [PENDING]
ACTION: Chris (and Zulah): send proposed wording to list and
take it to email [PENDING]
DONE: ACTION: Chris to bring up possibility of joint usage
scenarios and glossary TF between WS WGs at next WS-CG meeting
[AlanD]
end of review of action items
5. Status
Coordination group status by Chris
[hugo]
CG minutes: [3]http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/cg/2/04/16-minutes
[AlanD]
Consensus that common glossary and usage scenarios would be a
good idea
Glossary is in our charter; agreed that we will have a glossary
First version will be an extract of terms from reqs document
after it is published
[AllenBr]
ChrisF, if you're taking volunteers for editing the glossary, I
hereby do so--AllenBr
[AlanD]
Agreed AWB would own and be resp for WS Usage scenarios
document
Other groups will provide feedback
Daniel Austin expressed concern that a cross-group task force
was not going to address this
AWB is responsible for high-level usage scenarios
lower level use cases may be owned by other WGs
We can ask other groups to develop use cases we might identify
Concern that we have responsibility but not authority
This means we now have 2 more documents to be edited - editors?
Allen Brown of Microsoft for glossary
David for usage scenarios
Aim to publish within next 3 months
(clarified - refers to working draft)
MikeM: Will usage scenarios reference use cases? Does gap
analysis apply here?
Answer: potentially yes.
7. Upcoming F2F meetings:
[dbooth]
F2F Sept 11-13, Wash DC, hosted by DISA
[AlanD]
w/c 9 Sep, Arch 11-13 Sept, hosted by DISA in Washington DC
Further details will be posted RSN
Still to decide if we need a joint session with Desc WG
Following F2F will be Nov/Dec - w/c Nov 11 currently being
looked at
Joe: potential conflict with IETF meeting
Request that anyone with conflict for this week send email to
Chris
[dbooth]
Proposed Nov. F2F date: Nov 13-15
[AlanD]
Upcoming June F2F: Web page already set up; Jun 10-14 in Paris
(France)
In process of looking for accommodation
[dbooth]
June F2F:
[4]http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/04/f2fJuneLogistics.html
[AlanD]
Will include a half-day overlap meeting with Desc WG
8. Publishing and Schedule
Hugo: starting May 1st is publication moratorium
What we are trying to get is requirements draft out by Monday
morning
Comments will be invited by end of business Wednesday in time
for call Thursday 25th
Will make go/no-go decision during call
Aim is first draft - snapshot of where we are now - does not
need to be perfect
IPR statements will need to be published at the same time as
working drafts
Chris: Do members feel this is enough time?
Silence taken to be yes...
No-one uncomfortable with making go/no-go decision during call
next week
Like to begin glossary, usage scenarios, and arch itself ASAP
discussion invited on how we can accelerate conclusion of our
requirements
Proposed that we produce a second working draft after April,
then move into 'amendment by issue' mode
i.e. move from active mode to reactive mode
Katia: Requirements document needs to be left open as we
progress with Arch document
Need to get first draft of req doc out before we start on arch
doc
Propose we have outline of Arch document before next F2F -
agreed?
Could set up sub-team to work on usage scenarios now
sub-teams/task forces worked well in XMLP WG
Clarification: David Orchard volunteered to work on usage
scenarios
Security sub-group would build case for creation of a Security
WG
[ScottV]
I have a hard stop at 4:30... see you all next week
[AlanD]
Mike: (old fart) We're trying to get minimal agreement between
competitors - we should be minimalist in our approach, to get
consensus
Chris - i have to sign off in 5 mins
[chrisf]
ALL, we need a new scribe for the last 25 minutes...
volunteers?
[AlanD]
We need to navigate around showstoppers
Question: what happened to all these goals?
they are being reedited as we speak
[MikeM]
mike will scribe
[AlanD]
Thanks...
[MikeM]
qos group reporting
anne posted those notes to the list
(the f2f list)
subgroups to work in parallel
security is an example
usage scenario task force starting - see david o
davidO: perhaps submit security, orchestration, use cases
make it a requirement - for use case to map to a usage scenario
katia: orchestration should be in glossary
davidO: terms from US doc and ARCH doc will be found in the
glossary
markH: orchestration is more of an extended interface to
describe service paths
which exposes some service state
ie: describing service usage - srvice paths - rather than
controlling workflow
katia: orchestration may be a better word: error handling vs
sequencing, etc
joe: orchestration is more like composition
ATT: interested in asynchrony
Katia: failure handling is another term for workflow errors
DavidO: should we take a first cut at slapping the terms
together
this will tease out the subtle and big difference between the
terms
suggest - take a bunch of terms - relate them to the US and
ARCH doc
chris will finish the docs
davidO: orchestration -- control vs interface aspects
davidH: need champions for terms
zulah?: we don't have domains to decompose the terms yet
chris: maybe focus on reqs right now
davidH: editors job is to write the concensus of the group
including term definition closure
chris: is that OK with the editors
Alan: yes
hao: how do public WS architectures differ from our W3c WS
principals
davidO: we don't have much to validate or invalidate these
archs
davidH: our principals have not been articulated
adjourn
bye all
[hugo]
Zakim, please excuse us
RRSAgent, what actions?
[RRSAgent]
I see 3 action items:
ACTION: Hugo to fix the dates in the minutes and publish them
[1]
recorded in
[5]http://www.w3.org/2002/04/18-ws-arch-irc#T19-42-41
ACTION: DavidO: Send updated version of DAG0010 to the public
list and say that it was accepted [PENDING] [2]
recorded in
[6]http://www.w3.org/2002/04/18-ws-arch-irc#T19-44-19
ACTION: Chris (and Zulah): send proposed wording to list and
take it to email [PENDING] [3]
recorded in
[7]http://www.w3.org/2002/04/18-ws-arch-irc#T19-44-30
Attendance
Present: 37
Apple Mike Brumbelow
AT&T Mark Jones
BEA Systems David Orchard
Carnegie Mellon University Katia Sycara
ChevronTexaco Roger Cutler
Contivo Dave Hollander
DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology Mario Jeckle
DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology Hans-Peter Steiert
Digital Island Joseph Hui
Documentum Don Robertson
EDS Mike Ballantyne
France Telecom Shishir Garg
Hewlett-Packard Company Dorothea Beringer
Hewlett-Packard Company Zulah Eckert
IBM Heather Kreger
Intel Corporation Sharad Garg
Intel Corporation Joel Munter
Ipedo Alex Cheng
Ipedo Srinivas Pandrangi
Microsoft Corporation Allen Brown
MITRE Corporation James Davenport
Nokia Michael Mahan
Nortel Networks Abbie Barbir
Planetfred, Inc. Mark Baker
Rogue Wave Software Patrick Thompson
SeeBeyond Technology Corp Alan Davies
Software AG Michael Champion
Sun Microsystems, Inc. Chris Ferris
Sun Microsystems, Inc. Mark Hapner
The Thomson Corporation Hao He
TIBCO Software, Inc. Scott Vorthmann
T-Nova Deutsche Telekom Innovationsgesellschaft Jens Meinkoehn
W. W. Grainger, Inc. Daniel Austin
W. W. Grainger, Inc. Tom Carroll
W3C David Booth
W3C Hugo Haas
XQRL Inc. Tom Bradford
Regrets: 18
AT&T Ayse Dilber
Cisco Systems Inc Sandeep Kumar
Compaq Yin-Leng Husband
Compaq Kevin Perkins
Computer Associates Igor Sedukhin
DISA Marcel Jemio
EDS Waqar Sadiq
Ericsson Nilo Mitra
Intalio Inc Bob Lojek
IONA Steve Vinoski
MITRE Corporation Paul Denning
Oracle Corporation Jeff Mischkinsky
SAP Sinisa Zimek
Sterling Commerce(SBC) Suresh Damodaran
Sybase, Inc. Himagiri Mukkamala
Systinet Anne Thomas Manes
The Boeing Company Gerald Edgar
webMethods, Inc. Prasad Yendluri
Absent: 16
Artesia Technologies Dipto Chakravarty
Cisco Systems Inc Krishna Sankar
CrossWeave, Inc. Timothy Jones
IBM Jim Knutson
IONA Eric Newcomer
Macromedia Glen Daniels
Macromedia Tom Jordahl
MartSoft Corp. Jun Chen
MartSoft Corp. Jin Yu
Microsoft Corporation Henrik Nielsen
Rogue Wave Software David Noor
Software AG Nigel Hutchison
Sun Microsystems, Inc. Doug Bunting
VeriSign, Inc. Michael Mealling
Waveset Technologies Darran Rolls
XQRL Inc. Daniela Florescu
References
1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2002Apr/0062.html
2. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/04/f2f-minutes
3. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/cg/2/04/16-minutes
4. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/04/f2fJuneLogistics.html
5. http://www.w3.org/2002/04/18-ws-arch-irc#T19-42-41
6. http://www.w3.org/2002/04/18-ws-arch-irc#T19-44-19
7. http://www.w3.org/2002/04/18-ws-arch-irc#T19-44-30
--
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ - tel:+1-617-452-2092
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 18:33:45 UTC