Web Services Architecture Working Group
31-OCT-2002 meeting minutes

Working Group home page · Meeting records



AT&T Mark Jones
AT&T Ayse Dilber
BEA Systems David Orchard
Boeing Company Gerald Edgar
ChevronTexaco Roger Cutler
Cisco Systems Inc Sandeep Kumar
Computer Associates Igor Sedukhin
Contivo Dave Hollander
EDS Waqar Sadiq
Ericsson Nilo Mitra
France Telecom Shishir Garg
Fujitsu Frank McCabe
Hewlett-Packard Company Yin-Leng Husband
Hewlett-Packard Company Zulah Eckert
IBM Heather Kreger
IBM Chris Ferris
Ipedo Srinivas Pandrangi
Nokia Michael Mahan
Nortel Networks Abbie Barbir
Oracle Corporation Jeff Mischkinsky
Progress Colleen Evans
SAP Sinisa Zimek
SeeBeyond Technology Corp Ugo Corda
SeeBeyond Technology Corp Steve White
Sun Microsystems, Inc. Doug Bunting
Sybase, Inc. Himagiri Mukkamala
The Thomson Corporation Hao He
W. W. Grainger, Inc. Daniel Austin
W. W. Grainger, Inc. Tom Carroll
W3C David Booth
W3C Hugo Haas


Apple, Mike Brumbelow

Carnegie Mellon University Katia Sycara

DaimlerChrysler Research Mario Jeckle
IONA Eric Newcomer
Macromedia Tom Jordahl
Oracle Corporation Martin Chapman
Sterling Commerce(SBC) Suresh Damodaran
TIBCO Software, Inc. Scott Vorthmann


See agenda posted by the Chair.

Detailed minutes

Minutes approval from last call [1] from October 12, 2002.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/10/minutes24.html

Minutes approved. No objection.

Review of outstanding action items

Minutes approval from last call from October 12, 2002.

ACTION: HugoH: Gave status update on the problems of sending messages to mailing list.

HugoH: W3C has pproval to archieve emails. [CLOSED]

ACTION: HugoH: Status update on publication of group’s new working draft.
Comments have been collected.

MikeC: Question: Does anybody objects to publish the working draft as it is?

ChrisF: Stresses that the document is still a working draft and not the (final) Web services architecture document.

No objections.

ACTION: MikeC will send a note to W3C management for approval of publication.

ACTION: DaveO: Update on Liasion with OASIS WS-Security.


Proposal was updated and sent to the group. No/minor comment. Delayed for one more week to allow feedback.
Question: Does anybody can’t live with the proposed email to be sent to the OASIS WS-Security TC.
DaveO, RogerC, HugoH: Disussion on the wording around WS-I.
ACTION: DaveO: Reworded version of the email to the OASIS WS-Security TC by posted today 10/31/02 EOB. The group has time to respond until EOB Sunday 11/3/02.

Discussion on Choreography:

1. Definition of Choreography

HugoH: Glossary: DaveO send initial defintion to the list to start the discussion.

MikeC: Question: Is the current defintion sufficient for being presented to the AC reps?

DaveO: Proposal for a new Choreography WG requires a defintion of choereography concepts.

JeffM: Definition should happen in the working group.

Some discussion around internal / external choreography.

Seems to be consensus on including multiple defintions of choreography in the draft charta.

2. MikeC: Summary on the Scoping/Requirements Message on the Choreography WG proposal

Majority of answers lies in the range between 1 and 2.

MikeC: Enthusiams in WS Coord and W3CM has not been overwhelming.

DaveO: Porposal to recommend the creation of a task force for the time being, which should evaluated in more detail the scope and charta of a potential Choreography working group.

HugoH: Focus more on a proposal for choreography work in the Web services area and not so much on the AC meeting.

JeffM: We shouldn’t speculate what the AC reps are going to decide.

DanielA: Stressed the WS Arch WG’s commitment towards the W3CM and WS CG to deliver a proposal.

DanielA: Business Case: to enable other standards bodies to develop detailed specification in the choreograph space.

DaveH: industry is demanding choreography. We shouldn’t limit the scope of the working group too much. But focus more on what sort of problem people can solve with it.

MikeC: Issue is the scoping of the choreography working group; we should limit ourselves too much.

MarkJ: described the business need for Choreography WG.

Unknown: Focus on the requirements document and use case to outline the scope of the working group.

DaveO: We need use cases to describe the requirements.

MikeC: Summary:

1. WS Arch is pushing ahead towards the original commitment to propose a new choreography working group.

2. Current charta reflects pretty good what we want to propose

DaveO: Focus on the architecture documents and use them as a basis for the proposal.

MikeC: Next steps:
- Add business case paragraph into the charta draft
- Explain how the choreography theme fits into the Web services architecture

Summary of new action items

Please report here a list of the new action items.

See also the list of pending action items.

Chairs: Mike Champion <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com> and Dave Hollander <dmh@contivo.com>
Scribe: @@@ <@@@>