WS Architecture WG
19 Sep 2002

See also: IRC log



Apple Mike Brumbelow
AT&T Mark Jones
BEA Systems David Orchard
Boeing Company Gerald Edgar
Carnegie Mellon University Katia Sycara
Computer Associates Igor Sedukhin
Contivo Dave Hollander
Ericsson Nilo Mitra
France Telecom Shishir Garg
Fujitsu Frank McCabe
Hewlett-Packard Company Yin-Leng Husband
Idokorro Mobile Mark Baker
Nokia Michael Mahan
Oracle Corporation Jeff Mischkinsky
SeeBeyond Technology Corp Ugo Corda
Software AG Michael Champion
Sterling Commerce(SBC) Suresh Damodaran
Sun Microsystems, Inc. Doug Bunting
W3C David Booth
W3C Hugo Haas
webMethods, Inc. Prasad Yendluri


AT&T Ayse Dilber
ChevronTexaco Roger Cutler<</dd>
Cisco Systems Inc Krishna Sankar
Cisco Systems Inc Sandeep Kumar
DaimlerChrysler Research Mario Jeckle
EDS Mike Ballantyne
Hewlett-Packard Company Zulah Eckert
IBM Chris Ferris
IBM Heather Kreger
Intel Corporation Joel Munter
Intel Corporation Sharad Garg
IONA Eric Newcomer
Microsoft Corporation Allen Brown
Oracle Corporation Martin Chapman
Progress Colleen Evans
SAP Sinisa Zimek
Sybase, Inc. Himagiri Mukkamala
The Thomson Corporation Hao He
TIBCO Software, Inc. Scott Vorthmann
T-Nova Deutsche Telekom Jens Meinkoehn
VeriSign, Inc. Michael Mealling

Chair: MikeC and DaveH

Scribe: Suresh


Agenda Review

<dbooth> zakim info:
... frank, see the RDF of the IRC at
... To add yourself to zakim's phone number database, so that zakim will recognize you when you call:

Scribe: F2F meeting preparations:

Scribe: MikeC: Agenda –

F2F meeting preparations ,

requirements documents –

XMLP specs comments
.           architecture pictures update

Approval of minutes from F2F

Scribe: - MikeC: make sure your statements are rightly captured in the F2F minutes

<dbooth> ACTION: MikeC to note AllenBrooks as RogueWave attendee at F2F

Scribe: DavidO will need more time to make his changes to the F2F meeting records

Frank: has the Friday session minutes taken and distributed?

MarkJ: Took the notes - they are IRC logs - wants to know what to do with it

MikeC: The chair will do the cleaning up, and make it available

<Hugo> from <> and <>, regarding minutes: Ensures minutes are taken and posted in due time.

<dbooth> ACTION: dbooth to send MarkJ a draft of the Friday F2F minutes, based on the IRC log, for MarkJ to work from.

MikeC: Once again requests to ensure quotes from people are correct in the notes

MikeC: Talked to the IPR people at W3C

<dbooth> dbooth: My understanding is that the scribe should pretty up the minutes from his/her own notes and submit them to the MEMBER ONLY list ( ). The chair needs to add the attendee list (which the chair has), or send it to the scribe for inclusion, and after the WG approves the minutes, they are sent to the public list.

MikeC: Would prefer to stick to the technical issues in WSA
... What do people think about the action item that EricM brings - to clarify the relationship between WSA and Web Services TAG
... Does not see much interest in pursuing it.
... DaveH brings an issue I18N, and must be in issues list

Scribe: ACTION: I18N is in issues list to chair

MikeC: Action item - read and respond to arch document continues forward

F2F meeting preparations

MikeC: There is an all group W3C meeting in Boston on March 3-7, 2003 - the W3C chairs have been asked questions.
... Rather than attend the formal meeting, gather information from other meetings?

DavidO: Prefers to have a F2F

MikeC: Any preference on the days?

DaveH: Prefer end of the week for collecting impressions from other meetings

MikeC: Take a strawpoll?
... Overlap with WSD -
... Not overlap or to overlap with WSD?

<jeffm> +1 no overlap with WSD

MikeC: 4 people prefer no overlap with WSD
... 2 people prefer no overlap with XMLP
... Monday - Tuesday?
... No preference
... Thursday-Friday?
... 6 people prefer
... Anybody who cannot attend March 3-7, 2003?

Scribe: No response - too far in the future

MikeC: Who wants to attend the plenary meeting - it will be technical this time
... 9 people would attend plenary meeting
... External observers for F2F?

JeffM: Allowing the other observers?

Frank: Incude jounalists?

MikeC: Will clarify
... Sees no objection to include other W3C WG folks


MikeC: Reported briefly on W3C WSCG discussions in the list. W3C WSCG asked for clarifications.

Which of the inputs mentioned in the choreography proposals are necessary and which are desirable.

Promise to discuss it today.
... dbooth Fallside took an action item to work with W3C Mgmt to get the submissions done.

<jeffm> where are the CG logs/minutes

Hugo: Will make the logs available right NOW!

Doug: What is exactly expected by CG?


MikeC: Wants clarifications on what we want from this - for example WSCI, WSCL (both are W3C notes), BPEL, BPML, BPSS

Suresh: BPML is from, BPSS is from UN/CEFACT, formerly OASIS, and is from the ebXML suite of specs.

MikeC: Is it necessary to get these inputs, and what W3C should do if it does not get inputs?
... categorize them?

Ugo: All of these are necessary - because from a political point of view, the WG will start as a co-operative effort, and does not want to miss that

DaveH: Better vs. must should be clarified

MikeC: Must - if W3C canot get submitted, it would imply WG will not proceed

<jeffm> +q

Ugo: Needs all because otherwise there will not be full support

DavidO: Smaller list will encourage submission/better participation

MikeC: Which ones are must

DavidO: BEA thinks - BPEL and WSCI are must to good to have

JeffM: Is the input ideas for a base document?

MikeC: BPEL has a fairly restrictive copyright - will feel uncomfortable with BPEL spec unless submitted to W3C

DavidO/BEA:  believes BPEL/WSCI in the union of the necessary/desirable boxes.

DavidH: All are ramifications

MarkJ: BPEL and WSCI are key also

MarkJ: Other groups will follow W3C lead if we have a decent spec - e.g. ebXML uses SOAP

<dbooth> From Thursday's F2F minutes:

Suresh: BPML and BPSS have a user base, and therefore are necessary

<dbooth> [[
... Consensus: We should ask W3C management to work with the authors of other specs listed in the chor wg charter proposal to get them to the table.
... ]]
... Thursday's draft minutes:
... (some corrections are still pending)

DavidO: W3C must approach BPEL?

Suresh: BPML and BPEL are pretty close, whereas BPSS is modeling B2B choreography, and is another dimension. It will be helpful to have them come to talk to us.

JeffM: Shall we cut and paste from their spec if we use it?

MikeC: Need to clarify - based on the will of the WG, we should be able to do this

DavidH: Must and want diff must be captured

JeffH: a binary poll on each of these specs?

Hugo: Clarify how exactly  it means to use a submitted spec? Mikec: didn't get the clarification
... Find out which ones ae really important to get?

JeffH: Need technical advice to have a technical group started on the specs

DougB: What work can be done with submitted material?

DavidH: "these materials are technically required" for the process

MikeC: Any of them are not desirable?

JeffM: Just because something is submitted doesn't mean IP is available royalty free

Gerald: We can say it is a technical req. to do what others have done, but if it is not submitted, then we need to do this

<dbooth> In operational terms,
... W3M can't contact "the specs". W3M can contact companies. W3M will be asked to contact certain companies and encourage them to participate, based on important work they've done in the area of choreography. Which companies are most important for W3M to contact?

DBooth: W3C is requested to contact what?

MikeC: straw poll on teh specs
... Who thinks WSCI is necessary

Scribe: 7 people say yes
... 7 people think that WSCI is technically required, consensus on highly desirable
... On WSCL?
... Ugo thinks it is technically required 2 people think it is not highly desirable

MikeC: BPEL4WS, and its dependent portions in WS-Coordination and WS-Transaction are technically required?

Scribe: 6 people say yes, consensus it is highly desirable
... BPML
... 4 people think BPML is technically required, 4 not highly desirable
... There is a spectrum between tech. reqd. to "not highly desirable" i.e., nice to have

<jeffm> i think there are very good ideas in all of the docs and that the WG ought to be able to consider them

Scribe: BPSS?
... 3 people BPSS is technically required and not highly desirable - 3 vote

MikeC: Wanted these inputs to make CG understand
... Requirement document wrap-up

Scribe: Asks Hugo for clarification

Hugo: Sent email on MEPs, layering, etc. Would like to add it to the issues list
... Meaning of "Identification of partners" is an issue - there is a thread

Scribe: ACTION: Put this in the next week's agenda  

XMLP Comments

MikeC: Comments on XMLP - drafted by ChrisF
... Anybody wants to push back on the responses, XMLP folks want it soon
... XMLP will put a last call on XMLP attachments spec

Scribe: -- late October time frame

MikeC: EOT - can't get into the arch discussions today. The more we can get usable proce for glossary, teh better.
... Adding prose around pictures will help too

Summary of Action Items

ACTION: I18N is in issues list to chair
ACTION: MikeC to note AllenBrooks as RogueWave attendee at F2F
ACTION: What is Identification (Hugo)? Put this in the next week's agenda
ACTION: dbooth to send MarkJ a draft of the Friday F2F minutes, based on the IRC log, for MarkJ to work from.

David Booth
$Date: 2002/09/24 20:52:57 $