IRC log of ws-arch on 2002-04-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

[chrisf]

agenda+ 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]

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: 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: 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 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 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 http://www.w3.org/2002/04/18-ws-arch-irc#T19-44-30

Attendance