IRC log of ws-arch on 2002-08-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

zakim, this is arch
ok, chrisf
zakim, who is here?
On the phone I see +1.781.280.aaaa, ??P1, ??P2, ??P3, ??P4, R_Radhika, Dave_Hollander, Ron_Daniels, Chris_Ferris
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, chrisf, mnot, frankmcca, Ugo, mchampion, DaveH, Roger
Zakim, P9 is mnot
sorry, mnot, I do not recognize a party named 'P9'
who is here?
zakim, who is here?
On the phone I see +1.781.280.aaaa, ??P1, ??P2, ??P3, ??P4, R_Radhika, Dave_Hollander, Ron_Daniels, Chris_Ferris, Mnot, +1.408.737.aabb
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, chrisf, mnot, frankmcca, Ugo, mchampion, DaveH, Roger
Role being taken...
isnt that roll?
discussion of f2f agenda
frank: has some ideas as to shaping discussion for arch doc
frank: presentation aimed at putting wsa in context relating it to other aspects
daveh: is this a ws-i presentation
frank: no, the web agent 'cabal'
frank: not quite ready to distribute presentation to list. RSN
mike: so you're looking for some time to present this at the f2f?
frank: yes
daveh: chairs would like to see the preso up front
frank: ok
mike: we can touch base after this telcon
mike: daveh and I discussed this, things we can realistically hope to achieve
mike: 1) dispose of requirements
mike: thinking in terms of small number of hours, not more than 1/2 day
s/dispose of requirements/dispose of open issues (draft status) with requirements/
roger: how do we timebox that?
mike: schedule certain amount of time and try really hard to get closure on everything
zulah: what is the size and shape of the problem
mike: we have a month to think about that
mike: starting sept 1, get email threads going
zulah: sometimes we've been successful because we had someone driving an issue
zulah: if there's no ownership assigned, not likely to happen
mike: intend to use process that Chris used, assigning champions
mike: there were some you were championing, right
zulah: right, rtf issues basically closed, may be a few items left that didn't get addressed on a call
frank: have some vacation time...
mike: wwe agreed not to make substantive decisions
daveh: discussion, just no decisions made during august
mike: suggest we review current draft of requirements doc and understand that the chairs will be seeking champions
mike: so next week we can assign champions?
daveh: action to chairs to post list of open issues
ACTION: Mike and Dave to post list of open issues against requirements doc
zulah: doc may not be completely up to date, may need to review meeting minutes
mike: yes, that's one of the things I see champions doing
mike: identifying closed issues that haven't been reflected in document
zulah: I'll send issue to wsa-comments for RTF specific changes not reflected in requirements doc
ACTION: Chris to post URI of latest draft requirements doc to www-ws-arch
mike: so lets make as much progress as possible between now and f2f
mike: chairs want to have WG spend most of its time on moving forward with wsa doc
roger: will that pass muster with w3c process?
mike: if consensus isn't possible, we can simply take an up or down vote
daveh: don't think that is counter to w3c process
Note - Doug Bunting joined the call.
mike: DISA will have telephone facilities enabling remote participants to participate via Zakim... need to have count to know how many ports to allocate
daveh: the other doc we have open and published is usage scenarios, should allocate 2-3 hours working on that at f2f
daveh: breeze through to see how much we can accept, and what needs to be added/worked on
frank: sounds like a plan to me
mike: scenarios is one thing that we share with ws-desc WG
mike: we need to determine how much time to spend jointly with WSDWG
mike: useful to have several hours of joint session
mike: one objective, what we're trying to do, and what we've accomplished, they would do the same
mike: second, we could prepare a set of questions (dozen) for them and vice versa
mike: three areas of overlap; usage scenarios, implicit process model of WSDL, glossary
mike: ensure that our glossary definitions are consistent with their use
mike: any discussion?
chris: w/r/t glossary and usage scenarios, want to get the docs to them in advance and discuss specific feedback
mike: is this related to the six questions you had in mind?
daveh: no, more along the lines of where are we going...
daveh: agree with Chris, give them a reading list more than a week in advance of the f2f
mike: chair proposal: background 30-45 minutes preso
mike: big picture discussion, were web services are going, how to work together
mike: more specific issues w/r/t the glossary, usage scenarios and wsdl process model
chris: we need glossary edited and published (at least informally) in the first week we return to get it to WSDWG a week prior to the f2f
mike: not hearing any pushback on this
daveh: wait til we have conversation with Jonathan, sounds like a half day to me
chris: preparation will be a key success factor
daveh: so it sounds like you're suggesting a small tf to review wsdl12 as if it were a LC draft
chris: yes, that would be a good idea
mike: need to talk about substance of WSA in terms of what we can realistically accomplish at f2f
mike: need to get our arms around what we are and are not doing
mike: at the end of the f2f, we should have something, prepared response, elevator pitch; how we see things fitting into our framework (security, choreography, relaible messaging)
mike: we should be able to come to reasonable sense as to what is in and what's out of our scope
mike: does that seem like a reasonable objective for the f2f?
frank: I think that this is a process, can't expect to end the f2f with a decision that's cast in stone
mike: these are not by any means the definitive framework that won't be discussed again
frank: I know that these are very academic questions that could be argued for a long time
got it...
frank: need to cut through debate
mike: lots of views on subjects...
dave: the time is now to make concrete progress
mike: will franks proposal help advance understanding frameworks
frank: will help present where the thread that is pulling us is comming from
frank: hopes that it will be broader than just b2b and spans trust bounderies
frank: what we really want to say is the thread that is pulling the WSA is coming from 'here'
frank: one thread may be software engineering...
frank: what are we really trying to solve is what I'm trying to say
mike: we can realistically hope to have some sort of sketch that yes, that's a reasonable staring point
frank: I would be 110% happy with that
daveh: think the conversation would be something we want to have, get significantly more concrete, should have happened in requirements phase
frank: some of this occured during requirements phase
mike: another thing that daveh and I discussed was notion of sorting out basic features that WSA would have a fairly definitive statement on
mike: bit also the set on which we didn't feel we needed to be definitive on
daveh: draw the line as to where we want to be authorative
mike: could be said this should be in requirements
mike: but if we get too detailed, we won't produce anything in a timely manner
mike: define a box, bit don't put anything in it
mike: but as daveh says, for some, we will want to be authoritive
mike: e.g. authentication, we might say we don't plan on being authoritive
mike: substantively, what do we plan on focusing on and seizing as our own, versus allowing innovation and experimentation
daveh: so w3c already has ownership of XML, SOAP, WSDL... how do we do our best to ensure high levels of interop given the unique environment we're in?
mike: so do you think we can come to consensus at the f2f on this?
daveh: if we don't, then we won't have mat our goals
daveh: it may be that if we aren't successful at the f2f, that we won't be successful
frank: meta-level suggestion
frank: one definition of an architecture is the set of elements that must or should be there, and relationships between them
frank: relatively straight forward to say, you need this and that and relationships between them, that would be a good starting point
mike: would be a good starting point
mike: journalists and analysis are asking whats w3c's story
mike: if answer is 'we're noodling on it and we'll have something soon', won't cut it
mike: better to say here's our sketch, it may not be definitive
chris: actually, think that we need to focus on the architectural glue, the relationships that frank describes
mike: agree
frank: agree
daveh: agree
frank: could have someone leading discussion on white board
daveh: fundamentally, w3c process is focused on a document
daveh: we're having the editors prepare
daveh: white board discussion is often of limited success
daveh: should have long and frequent breaks so these things can be discussed in small groups and brought back to the larger WG
white board brainstorms with 50 people are limited success
mike: editoial team is working hard to get a reasonable document prepared, concrete proposal to WG as far in advance of the f2f as possible and we may be able to make some substantive progress in the next 2-3 weeks
frank: I think you're inspiring another presentation... would like to participate in the process
daveh: we owe the WG a sufficient amount of time to digest the reading list, close that 1 week prior to the f2f and then ask WG to review the documents and be prepared to discuss at the f2f
we should have a call for time for chairs to publish papers on reading list for f2f
mike: so f2f would be focused on refactoring and rearranging various proposals into one rather than hearing them for the first time
daveh: brings as many creative energies to bear quickly
hao, what about further work on the harvesting?
mike: the other could be to harvest what's already out there, things we're likely to take as given
mike: just a matter of getting it written down
mike: think that's the highest priority on the editor's agenda
mike: likely to be in the editor's WD prior to the f2f
some discussion on harvesting TF and its informal nature, confusion and lack of formality
chairs will endeavor to have future task forces to be more formal and held to deliverables, actions and timelines so that they can report on progress, etc...
daveh: should have standing action for tf's to report progress, etc.
daveh: editors are working off email, all of HTF was conducted via email on public list
hao: what are chances of WSCI becoming a WG within W3C WSActivity
mike: we could recommend charter of WG to address choreography, looking at WSCI and others
daveh: we should decide how we intend to interact with pulished proposals, and furthering those proposals
daveh: where is the boundary of what we influence directly and indirectly
daveh: if someone is interested in chartering a new group around WSCI, like to hear that off-line
mike: it's in our court
roger: there have been submissions to w3c on choreography?
roger: if we take a stand that we're going to charter a WG, there's a risk that we'll spend a year and OASIS will charter a TC
daveh: we are them:)
markn: would like a reality check from the W3T
daveh: we've been in discussion, they are looking to us for guidance and leadership
mike: this may be something we should jump on
mike: IBM, Microsoft and BEA published BPEL4WS that has some overlap with WSCI submission to W3C by Sun, BEA, Intalio, etc.
mike: if we can't deliver a draft charter in next two months
roger: press is basically saying that if w3c is not responsive, that it will likely go to OASIS
daveh: as chairs we are willing to challenge that charter
roger: status quo is no win situation
mike: we will invent one, we'll go to the mat with the director
mike: they want us to succeed
roger: we have an effectiveness action here
daveh: that's why we've gotr a call to action to get the arch doc drafted, being more assertive on the list, etc. we are out of time. would be interested in off line discussion but we're out of time (for the call)
markn: no obligation to use WSCI as a base for the charter of a new WG
mike: need to be on top of what our companies are doing, what the industry is doing and take some initiative
zulah: so you're going to discuss being able to charter WGs before we have an architecture
mike: we'
are determined to succeed
frank: what would be the goal of a new WG for this, to respond to BPEL or come up with an alternative
daveh: would be one of the long discussions we have in drafting the charter, that's the longest part
roger: understand that there are members of this WG interested in choreography
shouldn't we have some of the members knuckle down and draft a charter now?
mike: we can have that done, anyone interested
frank, markn, couple others say they'd be interested in this
some discussion about whether we can do this if we're on hiatus, we can, just no formal decisions
ACTION: chairs review actions from June f2f
neither was present
mike: we're over time, like daveh says, them is us, we need to decide what our priorities are and just do it
daveh: welcome conversation 1:1, mail list etc. this is an action we need to deal with
mike: adjourned
rrsagent, list actions
I see 3 open action items:
ACTION: Mike and Dave to post list of open issues against requirements doc [1]
recorded in
ACTION: Chris to post URI of latest draft requirements doc to www-ws-arch [2]
recorded in
ACTION: chairs review actions from June f2f [3]
recorded in
WS_ArchWG()3:30PM has ended
let's try that again:)
rrsagent, list actions
I see 3 open action items:
ACTION: Mike and Dave to post list of open issues against requirements doc [1]
recorded in
ACTION: Chris to post URI of latest draft requirements doc to www-ws-arch [2]
recorded in
ACTION: chairs review actions from June f2f [3]
recorded in
rrsagent, please excuse us
I see 3 open action items:
ACTION: Mike and Dave to post list of open issues against requirements doc [1]
recorded in
ACTION: Chris to post URI of latest draft requirements doc to www-ws-arch [2]
recorded in
ACTION: chairs review actions from June f2f [3]
recorded in
zakim, please excuse us