See also: IRC log
Present: AT&T Ayse Dilber, AT&T Mark Jones, BEA Systems David Orchard,Computer Associates Igor Sedukhin, Contivo Dave Hollander, DaimlerChrysler Research Hans-Peter Steiert , Fujitsu Frank McCabe, Hewlett-Packard Company Yin-Leng Husband, Hewlett-Packard Company Zulah Eckert, Ipedo Srinivas Pandrangi, Nokia Michael Mahan, Nortel Networks Abbie Barbir, SeeBeyond Technology Corp Ugo Corda, Software AG Michael Champion, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Doug Bunting, W3C David Booth, W3C Hugo Haas, XML Global Duane Nickull
Regrets: Carnegie Mellon University Katia Sycara, Cisco Systems Inc Sandeep Kumar, DaimlerChrysler Research Mario Jeckle, Ericsson Nilo Mitra, IBM Heather Kreger, Progress Colleen Evans, SAP Sinisa Zimek, Sterling Commerce(SBC) Suresh Damodaran
Chair: Mike Champion, Dave Hollander
Scribe: Alex Cheng
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Confirm scribe Scribe: Alex Cheng -------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Approval of minutes  from 7 November telcon  http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/11/2002-11-07WSAWGminutes.htm Minutes approved. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. AC Meeting Report and Summary. [Mark Jones] Hugo gave a presentation on web services. An interesting point on AC Survey results: WS Architecture and other WS related activites generated the most interest among AC. Results of survey will be evaluated and analyzed in next few months. There was a general discussion on the WS Choreography group. People were enthused but somewhat concerned Microsoft was not on the panel and not saying much from the floor. The general impression was Microsoft had not decided their position, and not sure for how long Microsoft would remain undecided. [Dave Orchard] Added a positive point: there was a widespread support for WSAWG in documenting what has happened in WS. People have starting making references to WSAWG documents. For instance, OASIS is beginning to refer to documents such as the WS glossary. Another positive point was noted, from a panlist standpoint: expected more heat on the topic of WS Choreography, but was surprised there wasn't much, more of Q&A. In general, people were pleased that WSAWG provide glossary and defining architecture. No specific comments about pace of forming new working group or cover more areas in WS. [Mike Champion] We shouldn't underestimate our effort in WSAWG and appreciated the feedback. [Mark Jones] Another point: there was a general impression that everyone expected some work to be done in W3C and some in other places like OASIS. It is important, especially as an architectural group, to keep plugged in to other groups. Call for leadership on our part to try to understand what liaison should be there and how we work together. [Mike Champion] Reiterate our interest in coordination with OASIS, WS-I and other WS related groups. [Gerald Edgar] Question: Any cross membership between the groups? [Mike Champion] Many members of WSWAG are already involved in various groups. Many overlap at corporate level as well as individual level. We try to be aware of, communicate issues among groups and encourage liaison. [Dave Orchard] As an AC rep, was a little disappointed at W3C response to the liaison role in the panel. W3C team hasn't been communicating well enough to AC reps on liaison. [Mike Champion] Question: Any action to WSAWG on this? [Dave Orchard] No. [Dave Orchard] Suggested liaison was best done on a case-by-case basis, bottom-up approach. [Mark Jones] One example Hugo cited: WS-I is examining issues related to SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2. It seems like some liaison is needed between us and WS-I. [Mike Champion] Question: Is there something we should take to Coordindation group? It's probably too late to influence SOAP 1.2. [Mark Jones] As first level, there should be general awareness of differences betwwen WS-I and W3C. [Ugo Corda] There's communication between WS-I and SOAP 1.2 and many others are also involved in both effort. Not too concern with the liaison between these two groups. [Mark Jones] Is WS-I waiting for new SOAP spec to be issued? [Ugo Corda] WS-I is looking into SOAP 1.2 and try not to diverge from that. [Mike Champion] For AC meeting, actual voting will go on for 30 days starting last WED. Few votes as of yesterday, and were all affirmative. Academic and Govt organization wanted closer alignment with Semantic Web. [Dave Orchard] Lots of poeple wanted WS Choreography, but no one wanted to tack the issue of not having that in the interim. No public position offered. [Mark Jones] General observation is people think Choreograph won't take long to move forward. [Dave Orchard] Disagree with the observation. [Mike Champion] Not clear what we can do at this point. We layout technical and non-technical issues. Not in our charter to deal with those. We'll know in a month if Coordination group will charter a new group for Choreograph. [Dave Orchard] Also, nobody at the panel commented if no WG on Choreo, then what they would do. Nobody offered any public opinion, although there were private discussions. [Mark Jones] There was also some difference in opinion where Choreography should reside. [Sinisa Zimek] Interesting comment: SUN would like to see WSAWG have power to recommend new WG on Choreography. Sounds like they are not convinced W3C is following recommendation of WSAWG. We definitely have the mandate to recommend new WG. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. XMLP Pushback  on our issue. The discussion at the F2F was inconclusive. Do we want to pursue this?  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Nov/0017.html [Dave Orchard] No time to think about this issue since F2f. Hope to keep it open for a while and talk to Chris about it. [Mike Champion] XMLP called yesterday. They think they have resolved IP declaration issues from all members in good standing. Sounds like SOAP1.2 is on track, better than couple of weeks ago. [Mike Champion] Follow up on this issue by email over next 2 weeks. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. MTF update ? [Heather Kreger] IP declaration look good. Went over feature proposal. Plan to re-convene WED 4-5:30 EST on regular basis. [Zulah Eckert] Raise issues: What should be in or out of WSAWG as far as management related work. Will initiate discussion in next MTF meeting. Address what should MTF be doing between now till next F2F. Don't feel like it needs a larger discussion yet. ------------------- [Hugo joined. Mike asked for comments regarding AC meeting.] [Hugo Haas] Everything is captured in minute. [Mike Champion] Main specific question: What's next? My take is AC reps will vote in next 3 weeks, then Director will consider and make a decision. [Hugo Haas] Yes. Until 12/12. After that Director make decision within 4 weeks after deadline. Not expecting decision before end of year. Most comments will usually come in at last minute. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. F2F Action items review Let's take stock of what we decided at the F2F, and what more needs to be done to move ahead. See the IRC logs 4   Here are the ones I extracted; please note any others. [Mike Champion] Put a wrapper around F2F and some general direction going forward. One big thing: we cannot avoid the question of what's a Web Service any longer. Do we want to reopen this issue, or keep it open? [Dave Orchard] Definition is not perfect, but through working on Arch documents we can better understand what it means. Working on wording alone is not a good approach. [Daniel Austin] Second that. [Mike Champion] We need to define what WS is in order to define the Architecture for it. True, but we can revisit the definition again later after the Architecture document. [Dave Orchard] We may run into definition legacy problem. Hard to change definition later. Torn on this issue. We are getting quoted and referred to. One approach is, we can delay a little bit for a couple months until Architecture document is better defined, but not delay indefinitely. [Doug Bunting] Agreed with Chris. Not sure re-opening WS definition issue is counter-productive. At least have some way to reference various parts of the definition. e.g. with a Diagram. Able to point conclusively to different parts of definition. [Mike Champion] Wordings may not be useful at this point, but some Diagram to illustrate may be useful, e.g. to help explain what is SOAP, HTTP-XML. Label intersections and various areas. [Doug Bunting] Volunteer for coming up with such a Diagram. [ACTION] [Dave Orchard] Going through F2F Actions. Not done yet. [Mike Champion] Issue of how cannonical or authoritative SOAP or WSDL is within WS Architecture. Avoid replying to the debate. [Daniel Austin] Would like to discuss this issue with Mike Champion separately after this call. [Mike Champion] Are we on the right track in defining what WS is with regards to WSDL and non-WSDL? [Dave Orchard] Motion to not discuss this issue now. [Daniel Austin] Second [Mike Champion] Suggest revisit this issue of WS definition in Jan? -- No objection. [Mike Champion] Question on Abstract. Action item to Editors and David Booth to make sure wordings of the Abstract is drafted and bring any issues to working group. [David Booth] Incorporated most of changes I was present. May still need to reconcile first day morning. Action items from F2F should be fairly well covered. Will go through all actions and send note to people to make sure they are covered. [Mike Champion] Action item: 195116 on Thursday. Talk to Dave Hollandar for clarification. Write up various architecture topics he proposed. [Martin] Will take a look. [Mike Champion] Someone will talk to David Fallside about getting SOAP documents refactored and how. To make features and extension mechanisms as a stand-alone docs. [Dave Orchard] Discussed with Hugo. Maybe we shouldn't go there. Instead use their work as derivative work and build on it. Rather than try to carve it out. Not suggest they undertake. Try to get preliminary draft soon. Want to see this as separate doc or part of Arch doc? Have reservation to ask XMLP to edit significant part of their docs. [Dave Hollanger] Not getting strong negative answer from his side. Would still like to proceed with XMLP group and see what they think. [Dave Orchard] Can try, but not comfortable with putting onus on XMLP group to refactor their documents. Post a proposed preliminary draft tomorrow morning. [Daniel Austin] Apologies to leave early. Send notes to MC concerning earlier issues. [Mike Champion] Idea to have XMLP to refactor SOAP spec as a stand-alone part is still on the table? [Dave Orchard] We try to do a little homework on our part. Give them a draft on the level of effort involved. [David Booth] WSAWG needs to do some due diligence on our part before approaching XMLP group. [Dave Orchard] We think it is the right think to do, but must be careful in urging them to split the doc. [Mike Champion] After DO posts email, others can comment on it and see what we want to say to XMLP. [Dave Orchard] WSDL group has been discussing this too. Come to conclusion that some stuff, e.g. MEP, is not related. Something need to be raised in CG level to coord among the three groups. We need to do our homework first. [Mike Champion] There is a meta issue of how much time we want to spend on wrestling with some of the tough issues. [Dave Orchard] Would like to spend more time going through action items listed. e.g. Message security, integrity, reliable messaging, asynchrony. Lay out work in WS-Security and see bigger picture. [Abbie Barbir] Agree. Give ourselves some time to refactor our own docs as well. [Mike Champion] Question: shoot for our next F2F to address these issues? [Hugo Haas] Originally we talk about end of year, but next F2F would be fine. [David Booth] Suggest addressing tough issues in parallel, gather different viewpoints, incorporate and propose group, in parallel with other efforts. Address before the next version. [Mike Champion] Suggest 2 tracks: (1) Nail down definition and document; (2) make sure tough issues are not ignored. [David Booth] Consistent definition for service provider is necessary. Currently we have some conflicting defintion in the docs. Need consistency and better clarify. Proceed more efficiently by small group, task force, then propose to WG. [Mike Champion] Should we have regular telcon time for adhoc task force, or organize these task forces? [David Booth] Better to have regular telcon time. [Hugo Hass] No objection. [Dave Orchard] In addition to MC's idea of regular time slot. Another suggestion is to split meeting into 2: a formal meeting on one week, with an alternating informal meeting that has no roll call, sort-of like task-forces in the whole. The advantage is the meeting and go throught quickly with less admin overhead. Find ways to make current time slot more efficient. [Mike Champion] Reasonable. What's general sense of this idea to have one or more permanent task force time slot for people to discuss hot, focus issues. -- No objection. [Dave Orchard] Which task force can use the slot, or topic du jour? Minutes can be taken, but no formal decision. Raise conclusion to working group for decision. [Mike Champion] Chair would decide the hot topics.