Working Group home page · Meeting records
Daimler-Chrysler Mario Jeckle
AT&T Ayse Dilber
See agenda posted by the Chair.
Mario is the lucky minute taker for this week's telcon.
Change minutes of last week to ask the CG for guidance regarding SOAP's attachment feature.
Management Task Force: nothing to report David: Task Forces should not work longer on one specific topic. Concern is the danger of silently establishing an unsanctioned working group. But, don't worry for the moment. Hugo: +1
Requirements document has been published as a working draft Hugo: Next week WG should finalize document. Nov 5: Doc should be sent to the director for approval. Oct 31 publication of WD. This will enable us to get our documents published before the AC meeting. If we will have some refinement regarding the choreography stuff we will not be able to get our documents published. If the moratorium ends at the begin of December we could publish another version of our docs. Publish both, the architecture document and the glossary. <h3>6. Reviewing XMLP Specs</h3>
Hugo: Three Comments have been sent to the mailinglist. Doug: Group should decide if additional text is necessary. Change the wording from "I" to "we" since comments are a product of the whole WG. Should the CG be involved when working with another group? (Consensus:) Involve CG to ask XMLP to create a concrete implementation of an attachment feature instead of just an abstract one. (Action Item:) Mark will draft a few sentences stating this. MIME content header. Content location header provides information available also elsewhere. (Action Item:) Doug will propose changed wording concerning reference swizzling. (Action Item to the group:) Find a home for a "best practices" section within the current document or create a new doc Hugo will put a couple of sentences into our response stating that explaining motivations would be appreciated. David will make a proposal about best practices applicable to formulate specifications.
Discussion on terminology: ???:Proposal not to focus on specific words of the terminology. ???:+1. Focus on the meaning rather than on the names. (Consensus:) Group should take glossary more seriously. Dave: The way of specifying the order of message exchanges between two or more nodes. It may or may not be Turing-complete. Choreography can be perceived between multiple nodes. Choreography languages that are merely designed as interface description languages are normally nor Turing-complete. Languages capable of describing a whole business process in a way that might be executable normally are. Talking about message often directly leads to workflow stuff. David: We should not mention the term "Turing-complete" within the spec. (Consensus:) WSA-WG will focus on messages and exchange patterns. Should transactions be addressed? And if so which style of transactions (compensation vs. roll-back)? Lengthy discussion ... will be continued via the mailinglist.
http://www.w3.org/2002/10/17-ws-arch-irc#T21-03-49-1