07:03:42 RRSAgent has joined #ws-arch 07:04:02 hugo has changed the topic to: WSAWG face-to-face meeting; IRC log at: http://www.w3.org/2002/06/13-ws-arch-irc 07:04:08 good morning 07:04:23 good morning Heather 07:05:09 Yowzer, you're up earlier Heather! (Or late!) 07:05:22 early.... yawn 07:05:43 how was dinner??? 07:06:53 I actually skipped the group dinner, cuz i had more work to do on my slides for today. But I had a nice quiet dinner at a cafe in front of my laptop. 07:07:56 you are too dedicated :-) 07:08:17 chris has joined #ws-arch 07:12:37 soliton has joined #ws-arch 07:12:45 morning, Heather 07:13:01 Did you get the message yesterday? 07:13:23 MChapman has joined #ws-arch 07:13:33 about a requirements meeting after the meeting today? 07:14:06 we try to have a reliability meeting after 5:00 pm 07:14:23 so, just stay tuned 07:14:37 ok 07:16:54 TomCarrol has joined #ws-arch 07:16:59 Roger has joined #ws-arch 07:17:15 Hi Heather. Is it 3 AM there? 07:18:17 It feels like 3 am here 07:19:26 yes... its 3am 07:19:47 mikem has joined #ws-arch 07:19:47 I haven't seen 3am since my last child was born! 07:19:49 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002May/0435.html 07:19:54 scribe: tomc 07:20:14 Tom...must have been a good dinner :-) 07:20:16 shishir has joined #ws-arch 07:20:34 yinleng has joined #ws-arch 07:20:51 yinleng has left #ws-arch 07:20:52 AllenBr has joined #ws-arch 07:20:54 jdmunter has joined #ws-arch 07:21:43 dougb has joined #ws-arch 07:25:23 Comments on the rewording of D-AC002.3.1 07:27:33 i don't see an ac002.3.1.... 07:29:43 dougs email is listed above 07:31:08 Daniel has joined #ws-arch 07:31:57 I'm not sure I understand the wording still.... 07:32:07 which wording? old or new? 07:32:09 and what happened to the superset concept? 07:32:10 new 07:32:39 I don't understand the new either, I support the old wording 07:32:55 we are trying to get at modularization 07:35:26 D-AC002.3.1 tabled for further thought 07:36:29 subsets of what??? the architecture? the end user interface? Is this like a wsi profile? 07:36:49 technologies developed for the arch. 07:38:05 Roger has joined #ws-arch 07:38:06 ws-i profile is very similar idea 07:38:37 Suggestion to drop "intended audience" from D-AC005 07:40:41 seems ok... 07:41:07 what was KIS^5 (simple, scalable, ...)? 07:42:02 Roger: moves to accept it as is 07:44:13 D-AC005 accepted. 07:44:28 Comments on D-AC005.1 07:45:08 what is the gist of the comments? 07:45:38 basically, ppl are arguing over the words, not the meaning 07:45:47 it needs some wordsmithing 07:46:07 ok 07:47:18 we are going to explicitly modify the statements with the "should" qualifier 07:47:45 JeffM: proposed to drop. 07:49:22 why? 07:50:18 Jeff sez: it isn't enforceable 07:50:43 David O advocates specialized jargon 07:50:43 DaveO: its all jargon and we will use jargon to describe web services 07:52:58 Those who care will resolve independantly. 07:53:24 those who care: Daniel and Alan 07:53:32 jeffm has joined #WS-Arch 07:54:05 Comments on D-AC005.10 07:54:26 Accepted 07:54:39 resolved: d-ac005.10 accepted 07:55:20 what happened to 5.5-5.8? 07:55:22 Comments on D-AC005.13 07:55:51 omh has joined #ws-arch 07:55:51 what are exotic constructions? 07:55:56 Can someone give me the requirements doc URL again? 07:56:11 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/06/wd-wsa-reqs-20020605.html#AC002 07:56:15 resolved: remove d-ac005.13 07:56:21 Thanks heather! 07:56:24 np 07:56:50 Roger has joined #ws-arch 07:57:16 Comments on D-AC005.14 07:58:08 i think this one has no relationship to simpleness or completeness of the architecture 07:58:14 *wonders how to tell if 5.14 makes any sense at all* 07:58:57 i propose to drop (if someone hasn't beaten me to it) 07:59:29 we could specify the maximum cyclomatic complexity I guess 07:59:34 *not* 07:59:43 :-) 08:00:08 DaveO: the goal as stated sounds good but there is no clear definition of what large amounts of code. 08:01:44 even a simple arch can require large amounts of code depending on how the vendor choses to implement it 08:01:49 shishir has joined #ws-arch 08:01:54 Roger: thinks it is important 08:02:24 I just don't care how much code it uses...more != bad code 08:02:46 the amount of code is not a measure of its quality 08:02:50 i don't want us to NOT add valid components because they require large amounts of code 08:02:58 right 08:03:22 i.e. security - there is NO way that bugger is NOT going to require HUGE amounts of code (by anyones definition) 08:03:36 security = ugh 08:03:57 (I agree Daniel) 08:04:05 JeffM: the union of all participants causes the size to increase 08:05:24 Roger: Its important that simple things must be able to be done in simple ways avoiding unessary complexity and size. 08:06:20 I agree with a csf of 'avoid unnecessary complexity and size' 08:06:28 Roger: Cut it 08:06:32 More precisely: the process of getting everyone to remove their "lie down in the road objections" often causes lots of extra complexity 08:06:45 resolved: d-ac005.13 removed 08:07:01 s/13/14/ 08:07:01 13? or 14? 08:07:05 Artifacts in the reference architecture should be defined in UML where applicable. 08:07:19 Comments on D-AC005.15 08:07:41 dear soliton: no bloody way 08:07:42 Daniel: Drop it 08:08:28 hugo has joined #ws-arch 08:08:38 having a goal to allow simple invocation styles may be something we don't want to lose 08:08:43 Uml bears the same relation to architecture that theology bears to religion, that is, none at all 08:08:52 why? UML is well estabilished. 08:09:11 Glenn: this refers to clean modularity 08:09:14 most programmers now are used to UML 08:09:18 and is excellent to defnng architectures 08:09:23 it helps the spec to be adopted. 08:09:36 GlenD has joined #ws-arch 08:09:50 I love UML, I teach UML, I don't abuse UML by attempting to do something with it that it is not good at i.e. architecture 08:09:53 yinleng has joined #ws-arch 08:10:11 what would you use instead Daniel? 08:10:16 define architecture 08:10:20 Gle to reword D-AC005.15 08:10:32 blobs that interconnect 08:10:35 Glen to Reword D-AC005.15 08:10:55 From my perspective: UML is simply a language 08:10:55 soliton is puzzled by Daniel. 08:10:55 Glen to reword to capture what gist? 08:10:55 I like SDML personally 08:11:32 how many of us know SDML? 08:11:40 i never even heard of it.... 08:11:42 UML is okay, for software applications 08:11:50 let alone average programmers 08:11:57 What's SDML - Structured Data Manipulation Language ??? 08:11:59 but which of the 10 class 1 UML diagrams is good for architecture? 08:12:11 #'s 3 and 7 08:12:27 component diagram 08:12:34 use cases 08:12:53 and so on .. 08:13:04 hmmm...Jeff sez, collaboration and component...nowhere do I get to specify the messaging 08:13:09 Glen: the rewording will worded along the lines of "every one can play". 08:14:01 I am willing to give gound on this one, up to the point where we *require* UML to be used 08:14:01 Chris: anyother low hanging fruit???????? 08:14:03 where, in most cases you can specify the messaging 08:14:11 wots messaging to do with architcture 08:14:18 note that I said "where applicable" 08:14:19 Zula: did we dicuss 21?????? 08:14:26 architecture us *all* about messaging 08:14:33 us = is sorry 08:14:54 I don't quite agree on that one. 08:15:22 problem partitoning and use cases are also large part 08:15:35 Daniel: will you allow UML to be used if someone wants to use it in a spec? 08:15:41 sure 08:15:53 so long as it is not *required* 08:16:21 it ceratinly should mean anything w.r.t conformance 08:16:23 should not i mean 08:16:31 did the word "should" qualify as your not *required* ? 08:16:39 I think you're trying to stand up in front of tidal wave, but that's your choice 08:16:43 yes sorry fingers to fast 08:16:49 I'll go for "may" 08:17:21 I guess we can have a vote on the choice here. 08:17:26 DaveO: He and Hugo discussed the XML schema (10.1) issue and found the usage of "should' would be acceptable. 08:18:05 as Jon Bosak would say (about UML) "I want my data back" 08:18:15 how come 10.1 is not in the editor's copy? 08:18:21 the business comics are not data, pictures are not data 08:18:29 because it's underneath 011 08:18:44 pictures say a 1000 words:) 08:18:44 thanks, dougb 08:18:55 totally agree with MChapman 08:19:01 I've seen these fights about requiring UML in other forums. What I've observed is that eventually everything starts showing up as UML, and pretty soon it becomes established in the culture. To the point where discussions of whether to make it mandatory or not becomes irrelvant. 08:19:01 yeah but you can't get your 1K words back 08:19:34 actually Jeff, I'm pushing it hard in my org. 08:19:35 for the software devs 08:19:56 Proposed rewording of D-AC005.15: 08:20:02 It shall follow the principles of well-modularized design to allow both extremely simple and more complex participants in Web Service interactions. 08:20:46 that appears to work ok... 08:20:57 Sure, like all new shiny "cool" toys (...err I mean tools ;-) people start trying to use it for everything. Eventually they settle down, and stop using the pliers to bang in nails (except when they've lost their hammer.) 08:22:40 where are the 'principles of well-modularized design found'? 08:22:42 rephrase of Geln's proposal: "It will follow the principles of modularized design in order to allow interactions at different levels of complexity among Web Services" 08:23:27 You can read them here Heather: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-m12n-schema/ 08:23:47 Resolution AC0010.1 accepted 08:23:48 Jeff: I agree 08:23:48 resolved: glen resolved: AC010.1 Each new architectural area that has a representation SHOULD be normatively defined using XMLSchema 08:23:48 the interactions are simple->complex... not the participants, right? 08:24:19 I like Daniel's rewording. 08:24:26 right 08:26:17 how about 'in order to allow both simple and complex interactions with Web Services' 08:26:23 +1 to Daniel's rewording. 08:26:51 Heather: I don't think that's general enough 08:26:52 but the participants are not always web services... so among web services doesn't seem right... 08:27:16 the complexity is about interactions, bot participants 08:27:29 By "participants" I was trying to get at the idea that you can build simple or complex programs to do simple or complex interactions... 08:27:40 Comments on D-AR011.1 08:27:49 i.e. both design and runtime have a smooth spectrum of complexity if we do this right 08:27:53 so... complexity is about participants????? 08:27:55 so i'd stick with Danel's wording. 08:28:11 Roger has joined #ws-arch 08:28:12 we could change "among" -> "with" 08:28:19 Or we can be more explicit 08:28:28 daniel's applies to complex interactions... not participants 08:28:51 DaveO: The process takes care of this requirement. 08:29:10 "It will follow the principles of modularized design in order to allow programs and web service interactions to smoothly scale in complexity." 08:29:26 i can live with this as daniel has it with 'among'->'with' 08:29:27 not as good as the previous one 08:29:32 Resolved D-AR011.1 removed 08:29:32 not a lie down in the road 08:29:37 resolved: d-ac011.1 removed 08:29:49 whoohoo break time! 08:29:51 word such as smoothly will only cause confusing 08:30:07 *participants retreat to their corners, breathing hard* 08:30:27 :-) 08:30:29 round 2 will start in 15 mintures 08:30:44 i'm just going to close my eyes for one minute.... 08:30:47 After the break the draft out line of the Arch. Doc 08:31:11 see you in 4 hours then heather :) 08:31:19 :-) 08:31:20 lol 08:31:58 20 minute break 08:36:07 Roger has joined #ws-arch 08:37:05 dbooth has joined #ws-arch 08:46:07 "It will follow the principles of modularized design in order to allow interactions with Web Services at different levels of complexity" 08:46:25 That's my final offer. :) 08:46:42 jdmunter has joined #ws-arch 08:47:06 joe has joined #WS-ARCH 08:47:38 David has joined #ws-arch 08:47:44 Hello wsa world! 11:40:01 RRSAgent has joined #ws-arch 11:47:51 mikem has joined #ws-arch 11:51:48 Eric has joined #ws-arch 11:52:48 just about to begin again 11:54:00 TAP demo: http://tap.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/w3csearch.pl?q=eric+miller&sitesearch=w3.org 11:54:15 quit has joined #ws-arch 11:54:41 quit has left #ws-arch 11:55:06 zulah has joined #ws-arch 11:57:49 dougb has joined #ws-arch 11:58:02 chris has joined #ws-arch 11:58:56 shishir has joined #ws-arch 11:59:12 Meeting resumed 11:59:22 jdmunter has joined #ws-arch 11:59:34 jeffm has joined #WS-Arch 11:59:50 dbooth has joined #ws-arch 12:00:32 dbooth, take a look at http://www.opencyc.org 12:00:52 Roger, here is the TAP site, the project at Stanford that has the demo of a semantic search: http://search.alpiri.com/wsi-bin/flek.wsp/tap?term=boston&method=search&locate=1&btnG=Search 12:01:19 Review of the Glossary 12:02:24 ok I'm ready 12:02:32 zulah has joined #ws-arch 12:02:33 anyone else out there remote from the F2F? 12:03:03 Tom, I can't take notes due to poor connection over here. Will fix and then take over 12:03:49 quit has joined #ws-arch 12:03:52 I'm remote 12:03:56 I'm remote 12:04:33 I've dialed into the concall number but it says I'm the only one on it 12:04:34 tom, I can take over with notes. WOuld you like this? 12:04:43 Dave has joined #ws-arch 12:04:59 the phone in the room does not work 12:05:06 quit has left #ws-arch 12:05:10 as far as i know there isn't any phone support... just IRC 12:05:13 AllenBr: The glossary only contains the lexicon and as the document goes foward what structure should the glossary have? where do we draw the boundries of the document? ihow are the ilities incorporated into the glossary? 12:05:23 zulah has joined #ws-arch 12:05:27 so we are at their mercy for details... 12:05:28 zakim, Dave is DaveO 12:05:29 sorry, Dave, I do not recognize a party named 'Dave' 12:05:39 zakim, Dave is known as DaveO 12:05:40 I don't understand 'Dave is known as DaveO', Dave. Try /msg Zakim help 12:06:07 zakim help 12:06:07 Daniel: are we going to share this glosary with the rest of the web services activity? 12:06:20 sigh 12:06:45 zakim, help 12:06:46 Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot for more detailed help. 12:06:47 Some of the commands I know are: 12:06:48 xxx is yyy - establish yyy as the name of unknown party xxx 12:06:51 if yyy is 'me' or 'I', your nick is substituted 12:06:52 xxx may be yyy - establish yyy as possibly the name of unknown party xxx 12:06:54 I am xxx - establish your nick as the name of unknown party xxx 12:06:56 xxx holds yyy [, zzz ...] - establish xxx as a group name and yyy, etc. as participants within that group 12:06:58 xxx also holds yyy - add yyy to the list of participants in group xxx 12:07:01 who's here? - lists the participants on the phone 12:07:02 who's muted? - lists the participants who are muted 12:07:04 mute xxx - mutes party xxx (such that 60# will not work) 12:07:06 unmute xxx - reverses the effect of "mute" and of 61# 12:07:08 is xxx here? - reports whether a party named like xxx is present 12:07:10 list conferences - reports the active conferences 12:07:11 this is xxx - associates this channel with conference xxx 12:07:12 excuse us - disconnects from the irc channel 12:07:13 I last learned something new on $Date: 2014/02/24 22:28:19 $ 12:07:27 zakim, I am DaveO 12:07:28 sorry, Dave, I do not see a party named 'DaveO' 12:07:42 Dave, try /nick DaveO 12:07:48 Chris: there is no cononical way to organize the glossary? 12:07:54 Open the pod bay door, Zakim ... I can't do that Dave, you're planning to unplug me :-) 12:08:03 wahoo 12:08:25 Zakim, only knows about people connected to the phone bridge 12:08:26 I don't understand 'only knows about people connected to the phone bridge', hugo. Try /msg Zakim help 12:08:48 *double sigh* 12:09:41 Chris: how self contained is this document (what is the scope of the glossary). 12:10:09 cgi-irc has joined #ws-arch 12:13:09 Tom, would you like me to take over scribing now? I seem to have my connect problems fixed. 12:13:22 omh has joined #ws-arch 12:14:29 What do we do with terms that have multiple definitions? 12:15:01 Allen: Each definition must be able to reference the author. 12:16:27 Joe: Once the term is in the glossary. the term would then be reserved. 12:17:18 words in dictionaries have multiple meanings in differnet context's, wouldn't that be true for glossarys as well? 12:17:27 Joel: The glossary should have as much detail to clearly identify the definition of the term given its context. 12:18:34 Chris: a singular glossary provides single reference point for the associated working groups. 12:19:23 Roger: is the keeping one glossary feasible? given the differences between the working groups. 12:19:43 i would think it would be feasible and NECESSARY within the web services activity 12:20:20 DavidB: Multiple definitions are possible and may be necesary. It the nmultiple def. case the context must be defined. 12:20:36 agreed 12:20:47 source, context, owner/authorship, multiple definitions allowed, but not preferred 12:20:59 Heather - look at "Service" in the existing glossary. 12:21:17 Another term for "context" is "field of use" 12:21:30 i'm looking at Service... 12:21:37 it says 'collection of endpoints' 12:21:41 There are two. 12:22:13 Chris: comments on the glossary should go to the list along with additions. 12:22:37 it would help if this were in alphabetical order 12:22:43 AllenBr: Please provide sources with your additions. 12:23:11 Stylesheets are envisaged yielding different organizations. 12:23:15 Heather, Allen said he can generate aphabetical in the next pass. 12:23:27 JensM has joined #ws-arch 12:23:36 so there are 3 definitions for service... 2 in that one and 1 on the first page 12:23:53 thankyou allen 12:25:14 I just thought that they were amazingly different. 12:25:15 We are now talking about WS security working group 12:25:29 how are we reviewing the glossary? Term by term? 12:26:01 chris: How big is the WS security WG? what do we need to see in the group? 12:26:21 Joe: Lets start with the requirements that we already have. 12:26:48 Glen: We should be framing the security problem. 12:27:05 I am scribe 12:27:15 zakim, I am scribe 12:27:17 sorry, zulah, I do not see a party named 'scribe' 12:28:06 Chris: the question is, do we see a ws working group as the working group that solves world hunger for mankind or a specific targeted focused WG? 12:28:20 q+ 12:28:21 Chris: somewhere between the two extremes? 12:28:23 q+ daniel 12:28:29 q+ jeffm 12:28:29 q+ 12:28:36 q+ heather 12:28:49 DaveO: I made a pitch in email about what a rough starting set of requirements would be. 12:29:09 q+ 12:29:26 DaveO: Let's have a security group talk about a framework, details of a trust model, task it with specific technological soluntions to authentication, integrity 12:29:35 DaveO: encryption 12:29:57 DaveO: knowing that there are others (e.g., Authorization, non repudiation), 12:30:13 DaveO: This is a starting point pitch 12:30:19 q+ 12:30:40 Daniel: Just in terms of the scope the ideas are good. We should confine the cope to not include world hunger. Confine it to security problems specific to WS architecture. 12:30:59 Daniel: Confine the scope as much as we can. Take advantage of others work 12:31:14 Chris: Just as a baseline, the WS activity is not charter to go beyond the bounds of WS 12:31:32 Chris: So you are saying not world hunger even for web services? 12:31:36 Daniel: yes 12:32:00 q+ 12:32:04 JeffM: We have requirements, we should pick a subset of generally useful requirements (relevant subset) 12:32:29 JeffM: pick pieces and fill in terra incognito. Whatever set of requirements that we choose it must address and end to end case. 12:32:48 JeffM: it doesn't have to be all cases but one in depth 12:33:26 Roger: question? is there another axis? On one extremem you make up new languages and syntaxes, on the other there are existing solns. with recommednations on how to put them together. 12:33:35 Roger: Which is our job? 12:33:37 q+ 12:34:02 Chris: In making our recommendation we have the option to propose putting pieces together or additions, changes 12:34:27 Roger: No, will this group in the process of creating the architecture specify which pieces to make security work (specifically). 12:34:39 Chris: we cannot dictate soln. We can provide baseline. 12:35:01 Roger: No, will there be components of security solutions in the architecture? 12:35:16 q+ Allen 12:35:50 Roger: DaveO: Say we decide that we should have auser name/password for authentication then we will say this in architecture and charter. 12:36:06 DaveO: If a WG tells us that we a re wrong, we will fix it in the document. 12:36:35 Roger: If I am trying to implement WS and I use the arch document, will there be any answers in there for how I implement security? 12:36:49 Joe: General guidelines but more specific will come from security group. 12:37:06 Glen: In other words, not really just like we don't say specific things about implementing transactions. 12:37:25 Chris: But we can provide starting points (e.g., XML digital signatures exists, use it). 12:38:17 DaveO: What I think is being asked is what is the authority of the arch group in binding things? So if we say use Dig sign. is this authorotative. 12:38:22 Chris: At best we can influence. 12:38:37 Heather you're up 12:38:46 k 12:38:48 I think that it depends on how our recommendations are phrased 12:39:09 I'm a little nervous about giving a new security wg carte blanche to develop a new security framework 12:39:26 it smacks of architecture groups having baby architecture groups 12:39:54 should we provide a 'broad framework' as part of our work 12:40:12 leaving them to figure out how to implement those components w/ existing specs and new specs? 12:40:33 Joe: Would like to help move the process along by returning to the six items from the requirements doc. 1) authentication, integrity, encryption, 2) authorization, 3) NR, 4) accessibility (DOS), 5) rest of the stuff in CSF and requirements. He suggests that this is the prioritization. 12:40:35 ok.. thats it 12:41:19 DaveO: I agree 12:41:43 +1 on the framework 12:41:53 Heather, what did you mean by 12:41:56 heather, you're stuff is up on the board 12:41:58 DaveO: I think that heather is getting at the fact that the framework has to have some detail to provide constraints. We are not writing a blank check. 12:42:01 "OK, that's it". 12:42:05 s/you're/your 12:42:07 q? 12:42:16 ack heather, joe 12:42:25 by 'ok thats it' i meant 12:42:28 Joe: We need to supply detail? Yes because this lends credibility> 12:42:32 or end of tirade 12:42:40 Thanx. 12:43:18 TomC: I was wondering if when we send a WG off to work, are we also going to privide a well defined process for making changes back into the architecture 12:43:38 Mchapman your up 12:44:03 q+ 12:44:08 Summary: We own framework, set context, but offer a process for feedback into changing the architecture. 12:44:43 Martin: Question is, when we charter the security group, do we pre-phase them or only charter them for a specific phase? 12:44:52 q- TomCarrol 12:45:01 Daniel: this is how SOAP works today. 12:45:20