Carnegie Mellon University Katia Sycara
Minutes approval from last call  from October 12, 2002.
Minutes approved. No objection.
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.
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.
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
Please report here a list of the new action items.
See also the list of pending action items.