Web Services Architecture Working Group
06-Feb-2002 meeting minutes

Working Group home page · Meeting records


        Dave Orchard
        Gerald Edgar
        Igor Sedukhin
        Roger Cutler
        Sandeep Kumar
        Yin-Leng Husband
        Dave Hollander
        Timothy Jones
        Hans-Peter Steiert
Digital Island
        Joseph Hui
        Marcel Jemio / Alan Kotok
        Zulah Eckert 
        Heather Kreger
        Joel Munter
        Sharad Garg
        Steve Vinoski 
        Alex Cheng
        Srinivas Pandrangi
        Glen Daniels
        Allen Brown
        James Davenport
        Michael Mahan
        Abbie Barbir
        Jeff Mischkinsky
        Mark Baker
        Sinisa Zimek
        Chris Ferris
        Doug Bunting
        Himagiri Mukkamala      (awaiting AC rep confirmation)
        Anne Thomas Manes
W.W. Grainger
        Daniel Austin
        Hugo Haas
        Darran Rolls
Prasad Yendluri

Not present
        Paul Denning            belated regrets
        Henrik Nielsen
        Eric Newcomer           regrets
        Kevin Perkins
W.W. Grainger
        Tom Carroll
        Mike Ballantyne
        Waqar Sadiq             belated regrets
        Dorothea Beringer

The content of this section will be provided by the Chair.


1. Roll call, scribes for minutes/action items (11.00 + 5)

2. Agenda review, and AOB (11.05 + 5)

3. Review of Charter, modus operendi and initial
    plan of work (11.10 + 15)

4. F2F planning (11.25 + 10)

5. Call for editors (11.35 + 10)

6. Round table discussion, initial requirements
     gathering  (11.45 + 35)

7. Subteam formation and next steps (12.20 + 10)

Review of outstanding action items


Detailed minutes

1. Roll call, scribes for minutes/action items

first roll call..
we need a scribe. the take down notes from the meeting. I am the scribe.

2. Agenda review, and AOB

first topic: review charter, mode of operations and planning. face to
face, call for editors, call for editors to work out requirements.

any other business: Hugo - at end of month a technical plenary at
Cannes at France. a one hour slot for WS a technical presentation. David
Falside Web Services  co-ordination group head. If you have an idea for
discussion - send it in to Hugo Haas and Chris Feris.
Current thoughts are: XML protocol working group is to be rechartered.
What would you like it to work on? - Feedback is wanted.

A second item brought up is that we need to reschedule this meeting. we
have members in Australia. Thursdays at 3 PM US Eastern time (-5 GMT)
is proposed.
ACTION: Hugo to schedule the new meeting time.

3. Review of Charter, modus operendi and initial plan of work

Next item is the charter. we review the process aspects. we are not to
design technologies, but to determine what is missing to make
recommendations for activities to fill in gaps.  We are to design the
framework but not the solution. What are the considerations for a
solution to needs. requirements co-ordination and overall design is our
responsibility. We may recommend the creation of a new group if that is
seen as necessary. There are resource limitations for the working groups
to be established though. There is seen that we need involvement in
activities both within and outside the W3C. We need to focus on what is
needed, and not on what work is already going on.   There was a question
on appropriateness of the work of other groups. Would we do the analysis
to determine the appropriateness of other work. Hugo brought up that we
need to work with  external activities  though the co-ordination group.
ebXML (OASIS and UNCFAC - ebXML co-ordination group), OMEGA, and the ??
are seen as already doing work in this area. OASIS will need close
co-ordination since they are addressing aspect of this area - security
and messaging. What form will this co-ordination take is a question that
will need to be worked out. Who is participating in these other
activities. Who is in the right position was not answers. With cross
pollination we can leverage other activities. the co-ordination group
will recommend the creation of other working groups. We can recommend
the creations. The CG is not doing the analysis. The CG will prioritize
the creation of the working groups.

An early task is to identify tasks and players for those tasks. we need
requirements and a framework.

With the framework we can address how the parts fit together. Early on
we need requirements from the other groups. we need to decide on what is
to fit in to our activity. roger cutler - brought up are there other
frameworks already available. we need to understand what other groups
are doing.  There was a question on the Microsoft / IBM / BEA Web
Services alliance, but the people from those firms did not have any

Once we break down into subteams we will have a better idea of the work

There is a need to maintain close working relationships to other working
groups. XML Protocol and description groups are key to this.

The charter allows two participates per member company. every member is
fully engaged. There is one vote per member organization. each
organization decides for itself how to cast that vote. When a vote is
taken it is by company.

4. F2F planning

End of March - we do not know where or when. the last week of march or
the first week of April. There are potential venues in Chicago, Virginia
and Seattle. There is also a note on setting up a voice and video
connection to the meeting for those who can not travel.  there was a
suggestion on the 8,9,10 or April.  There will be a note going out on
this topic (e-vite) to determine the dates for the meeting. The face to
face meetings are held about once a quarter. There was a suggestion on
holding the meting near the IETF meeting time and location. The W3C
needs 8 weeks to arrange the meeting.

ACTION: Chris to start an e-vite for the f2f dates

5. Call for editors

this can be time consuming - ti can be more, about 40% of your time,
about two days of the week  chris of Intel, he might, but it depends on
the content.

An editor well co-ordinate the working draft, issues list, requirements
gathering, the requirements document to be edits as the WG refines the
requirements.  this would start almost immediately to gather
requirements and turn them into the document.
Volunteers are:
Daniel Austin
Michael Mahan
Joel Munter
Dave Hollander
Sharad Garg
Abbie Barbir

We need to decide the editor before the face to face. those volunteering
will be contacted for this. This is a subteam of the working group.

6. Round table discussion, initial requirements gathering

David O: there are a number of things from BEA - a clear process for the
architecture group and CG and external groups for prioritization of
requirements a clear process is needed. they would like to see a
prioritized working groups. messaging, routing and reliability. they
would like a recommendation that another working group be chartered.

Igor Sedukhin - they are trying to stay neutral - meaningful
architecture standards. for the technical side they are concerned about
management and security.

Roger Cutler messaging and reliability are important - they are
concerned about co-ordination with other groups such as OASIS - and to
keep things understandable.

Sandeep Kumar sees an evangelizing role for this group. how to we
evangelize this to our own organizations and partners. technically - the
messaging and transactions - orchestrations and routing of services.

Yin-Leng Husband web services architecture... co-ordination of ws
framework. co-ordination between ebXML and w3c..

Dave Hollander - we need to make this understandable to "the normal
person" this needs to be understandable to avoid arcane known

Timothy Jones - coherent picture of web services. the diagram of web
services - transactions - orchestration and interactivity of web

Hans-Peter Steiert  - He agreed with the  the topics already mentioned..
platform and vendor neutrality.

Joseph Hui - two point framework - amenable to content delivery. part of
the mainstream activities - not a fringe movement. extensibility is seen
as important.
Second - the charter - add the work secured

Marcel Jemio - a diagram - open and flexible - this is a requirement.

Boeing - security is important to enabling business to business web
services between enterprises.

Zulah Eckert - primary interest the architecture. To identify
technologies and their components of the technologies- return to
requirements an framework and description a larger group to participate
in WS activities. to bring existing efforts to bear to this activity.

Heather Kreger - IBM - they want to see the stank develop as a
partnership. Interoperability is important.

Joel - Interoperability, platform independence. a component stack -
this effort will lead to that   he also sees the importance of QOS

Sharad Garg - capability and ease of use. He mentioned Peer to peer. He
would like to see convergence of web services  and p2p.

Steve Vinoski- Iona - keep coherent and consistent frameworks. there are
o lot of activities, we need coherence - implementation issues. we need
to make sure we are not promoting specific object models. QoS ,
scalability, avoid reinvention of the wheel.

Alex Cheng - keep is simple and easy to deploy

Srinivas Pandrangi: managing complexity of the services. wants to
explore what role XML dbs will play.

Allen Brown - echo heather - ws is the principle framework for

James Davenport. - Miter - Military ID and co-ordination of other
activities. not to reinvent to wheel. stay simple. Security - ID issues
and mitigation for those issues.

Michael Mahan - keep thinks open and simple - low barrier. synchronous
and asynchronous uses.

Abbie Barbir - content and content security - how a content layer
interfaces with other layers. Personalization and device independence.

Mark Baker - fan of web architecture. goal is to convince group there is
less work than

Sinisa Zimek- security messaging, orchestration. e-business
applications. capability of building applications - scenarios for
building wweb services. co-ordination activities connected to web
services not to start from scratch. and to come up with things on a
timely manner.

Doug Bunting (sun)-  there is a need to low barrier to entry. There is
currently a multiple moving body problem. we need an iimplementable
framework. we all have a lot of experience with WS we need to apply this
and get it out to the world

Ann Manes - Interoperability of advanced features.. security , routing
and so on.. Qos beyond basic services what security levels what is
we want to make sure we have all the capabilities of other technologies,
but simple

Daniel Austin - he agrees with every thins, except that simple may not
be possible. Granger is very interested in WS for e-commerce. to solve
diverge problems. vendors going in different directions.

Darran Rolls    He agrees with everything. consistent and coherent
model. FUD from conflicting models is a problems. He is interested  in
security management and deployment. the   management of the web services

Prasad Yendluri - . web methods -  how well enterprises will deploy them
Interoperability and deployment. how to account for use and charge for
WS. another key - how to monitor and manage WS

Jeff. - Oracle "ditto" two things. a reasonably coherent definition of a
web services. beyond the stock ticker - B2B

Hema (sybase) - a clear picture of WS that is is accessible to a range
of businesses. technically - a good security model - enterprise to
enterprise. Business process management.

Glen - In SOAP and WSDL we have the concept of orthogonal
extensibility, so we explicitly recognize that more than one group is
going to be building extensions. Some are critical (security, etc)
for us to consider, but we can't/shouldn't try to do it all.  Would
like to see arch group discuss how w3c can act to provide guidance and
a framework for a "clearing house" of such extensions, without doing
all the work ourselves.

Hugo Haas - the services is emphasized, and the web part is ignored. to
do things in a web friendly way.

7. Subteam formation and next steps

Out of time.

Summary of new action items

Scribe: Gerald Edgar <gerald.edgar@boeing.com>