WS Arch F2F - Wednesday
28 Jan 2004

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Contents

• Topics
  1. Manual (v) Autonomous Discovery
  2. Issues list
  3. Management
  4. Publication
• Summary of Action Items

<he> quit

Manual (v) Autonomous Discovery

fgm: machine-processable semantic oriented discovery important
... autonomous discovery required when service details may have changed - e.g. location has moved

Scribe: discussion on Index Approach .. distinction between active, passive and hybrid approaches
... Peer-to-Peer Discovery
... clarification of termination criterion
... Federated Discovery Services

fgm: federation is about appearing as a single service

mchampion: what's left ?

Scribe: Using, Semantics, Security, P2P, Conversations, Mgt, EDI, Technologies
... Vote ..
... Using WS, Semantics 2, Security 4, P2P, Conversations 3, Mgt, EDI 2, Technologies 5
... Web Services Technologies
... moved SOAP detail from opening to SOAP section
... how should Roger and Paul's list of Web service technologies be included: as a posting or in the appendix ?
... reword of SOAP 1.2 definition
... WSDL - reword
... Web Services Security

fgm: we need to communicate three things: resources, policy guards and policy description

Roger: concerned that not all threats are addressed

Katia: there are some attacks for which we have no reliable defence

Scribe: back from break
... Conversations

fgm: proposes deleting whole section

mchampion: it's gone

Scribe: EDI
... Semantics
... problem over HTML (v) bank account example.. dbooth to reword.

fgm: higher visibilty leads to reduced cost of entry

<hugo> ACTION: David to replace "meta-data" by "metadata"

Scribe: Using Web Services
... discussion over the authoritative nature of this section, in particular surrounding the word "agree"

dbooth: will add editor's note

Scribe: Peer 2 Peer
... we're happy with this section!
... that's the list!

mchampion: reconstuct the agenda, we have 24hours to live ..

Scribe: Glossary, Usage Scenarios, Conclusion (Achievements, Continuing Issues) Req/Issues Analysis, Management (3:30), WSDL Liason (4:30), OWL, Appendices

mchampion: let's take 15 mins on the Glossary

Katia: should we ensure that all our concepts are in the glossary ?

Scribe: lunchtime!

<dbooth> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/arch/scenarios/ws-arch-scenarios.html

<mikec> ACTION: Hugo will shrink images in Usage Scenarios doc to be IE-friendly
... bijan should dream on

<ericn> scribe now ericn

<hugo> IE only prints 640 pixel-wide

<bijan> I'd like to be informed about the owl time, so I may attend that bit

<ericn> ok, I'll be sure to note it here when the discussion starts

<ericn> ACTION: Mike to raise future of usage scenario document with WSD and others
... Now reviewing introduction, usage scenarios within use cases

<mitrepauld> I've been pulled (yanked) back into my day job. Sorry I have not yet made it back to the WSAWG F2F.
... I just sent text for Appendix A on Identity Federation to www-ws-arch.
... Are you going to dinner as a group tonight?

<ericn> Yes the plan is 8 pm at Legal Seafood in Burlington
... done with usage scenarios?
... Yes
... Conclusion discussion is next
... Discussion on list of additional topics to be included in the conclusion

<mitrepauld> thanks eric, I'll plan to be at Legal Seafood at 8pm.

Scribe: ACTION: Roger will send email to the submitters of all open issues closing those issues.

<mitrepauld> link above is gives error 403
... bye

<ericn> Discussion currently on tying up loose ends in the document

<hugo> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2004Jan/0025.html

<ericn> Validation by the email reference above of meeting the requirements
... Hugo says there's one AC006 - that we didn't meet completely, there's no concepts and relationships model for security
... Mike says we can add a sentence to indicate that we were unable to address one (or more) of the requirements
... Consensus is to list the AC006 requirement as an exception to the statement that we met all requirements and say why.
... Also delete items that we think are out of scope since they pertain to implementation details
... Some are not realy architectural
... Done with requirements review, on to the issues review

<mikec> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/#issues
... http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/issues/wsa-issues.html

Issues list

<hugo> issues 2 - in the document
... issues 4 - done
... issues 5 - done
... issues 14 - done
... issues 16 - done
... issues 17 - done
... issues 21 - done
... issues 24 - in the document
... issues 26 - done
... issues 30 - done

<bijan> WSD is in break. Marsh heading up to check in
... As am I

<fgm> <p>
... The architecture lays the conceptual foundation establishing interopable Web services. It also provides a framework in which more detailed specifications can be properly integrated into coherent wholes. The architecture identifies a number of important abstractions and their interdependencies.</p>
... <p>
... We expect that individual specifications should be viewable as concrete instantiations of parts of the architecture. However, it is highly likely that any given concrete specificiation will have additional detail not accounted for in the architecture. For example, SOAP 1.2 has aspects that map to the Message Oriented Model, but the architecture does not specify the specific format of messages.</p>
... We have clarified the relationship between the Web and Web services

<ericn> Back from break; working on summary section

<mikec> Fine introduction, we need a few details:

<yinleng> David, I can phone now if that is appropriate

<dbooth> yinleng, yes please

<mikec> - Defined SOA and related it to ...
... - Explicated the relationship between the Web and Web services, finessing the REST wars

<yinleng> The phone bridge doesn't to work

<dbooth> yinleng, the code is 9723
... is that what you used?

<fgm> We have /invite zakim

<yinleng> No, sorry

Management

<hugo> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/arch/wsa/wd-wsa-arch-review2.html?rev=1.89&content-type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1#management_model

<dbooth> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/arch/wsa/images/metaservice2.png
... YinLeng just sent: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2004Jan/0054.html
... Proposal: INclude the management model in http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/arch/wsa/wd-wsa-arch-review2.html?rev=1.89&content-type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1#management_model and merge with existing 3.9 text, and make it be a 5th model in our architecture.

<hugo> Consensus of the WG

<hugo> ACTION: Frank to investigate on feasibility of reinserting Management Model

<hugo> ACTION: Hugo to make MTF note valid HTML and link from annex

<yinleng> Hugo, when you turn the MTF note into valid HTML, could you please just correct the mispelling of my name in the documents?

<ericn> Consensus of the WG is that the management document should be archieved and linked and published as a note

<hugo> yinleng, please send me email about it

<ericn> Consensus of the WG is to reinsert the management model into the concepts and relationships, ensuring consistency with section 3.9

<yinleng> Hugo, I will go through the 3 MTF notes and try to clean them up as much as possible and email them to you some time later today then.

<hugo> yinleng, great
... I'll probably work on them tomorrow
... note that I have already dealt with the lifecycle one:

<yinleng> Thanks for your help in turning them into HTML
... I have in fact sent the links to the three notes previously as part of an action item.

<hugo> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/3/10/lifecycle/lifecycle.html

<yinleng> Hugo, I've sent email to you about the lifecycle.html. Will work on cleaning all the notes later and email to you.

<hugo> fgm, http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/arch/wsa/wd-wsa-arch-review2.html#management_model

<mikec> consensus: The WG agrees that Katia will update the OWL version of the WSA concepts/relationships once the final version is frozen
... Hugo/Davild will publish this on W3C website, linked from Note
... Hugo/David have authority to make non-substantive changes to any docs to make them meet publishing criteria
... Hao has similar authority for the Usage scenarios doc

Publication

<hugo> Consensus of the WG: Thursday noon; no substantial changes (only editorial fixes agreed to during the meeting)
... Consensus of the WG: next Wednesday; no more changes
... Katia will send OWL documents to Hugo

Summary of Action Items