Present: Dave Orchard, David Booth, Eric Newcomer, Geoff Arnold, Hao He, Igor Sedukhin, Mario Jeckle, Mark Jones, Mike Mahan, Mike Champion, Paul Denning,Roger Cutler, Sandeep Kumar, Shishir Garg, Tom Carroll, Zulah Eckert
Chair: Mike Champion
Scribe: Tom Carroll
<dbooth> www.freebxml.org ?
<dbooth> (Scribe is Tom Carroll)
Scribe: Suggested Agenda items:
EricN: The status of the document
DaveO: Last call of the web architecture
Mike: Choreography invited the bpel committe to ws-chor F2F. Seems to be some overlap but it appears the groups will be able to wotk in constructive manner.
MikeC: the clear difference is ws-chor is language neutral where BPEL provides an implementation.
MikeC: Not much change since Rennes F2F.
EricN: Should have some more time to work on the document. Should
I review the list of authors and touch base with them about their assigned
... Will help drive the editors call.
... will review the current document and try to get additional input from previous authors.
MikeC: ws-chor are using bugzilla to track the smaller bits an
pieces, that are not formal issues.
... Do we want to use with Bugzilla and does anyone have past Experience with it.
DaveO: this tool seems to be focused on keeping thing from falling off the radar, but it does add an additional layer of process and may make things more difficult. Small push back.
MikeC: DavidB can you look into what we need to do to get it setup?
DavidB: We need somebody to take ownership of it once it is available.
DaveO: the Tag is considering a last call on the document end of ~July. So having your comments ready would be helpful and would be greatly appreciated.
MikeC: Are there any areas in the Web Arch. doc we need to comment
or have issue with. The target resource discussion might generate feed back.
... would encourage members to take a close look at the document and to ensure there are no issues and is completely helpful.
DavidB: thinks the target resource issue will get worked out and be consistent with the web arch. document.
DaveO: In this target resource discussion do you think the web arch. doc help and could it help further.
DavidB: I think it helped and was Adequate.
MikeC: There were drafts of the were making assertions on the restfulness of the web, they seem to have gone away. what the state of that section.
DaveO: The rest issues seem to be waning. the rest issue caused the same problem for the tag that it did for the wsa.
Scribe: ACTION: To everybody please review the current Web Arch
document and formulate comments.
... ACTION: Chairs to bring up the Web arch document on later telcon.
MikeC: Meta question; people seemed enthusiastic with the course of our efforts. Does anyone have a problem with the what we are doing.
Scribe: ACTION: Editors when we put the UML in the diagram we must explain why we are doing this.
MikeC: 2 issues given the diagrams. How do wee filter out the
detail for the WS arch. document?
... How do we go adout aligning the soap uml and WSDL uml diagrams?
... How do we identify what belongs in the WSA diagrams?
... are there any ideas on how we might decide.
DavidB: I would like to have the things associated with the WSA
grouped together. The HasA IsA should be in an appendix. The concepts and
relationships be specific to the Web services.
... Technology and languages that accoplish the arch. should be in their own section.
<Hao> Agree with DavidB
MikeC: We clearly identify the things identified in the top down
process belong in the concepts and relationships.
... Does anyone have a desire to validate the spaghetti diagrams against the public drafts.
... Propose a new speghetti diagram based on the diagram work done for soap and wsdl.
... No volenteers, we will add it to the tasks needing a champion.
MikeC: we have draft text in the document and over a year of
discussion on the document and we need to drill down to specific parts of the
document. to cross reference the text in the public working draft against the
mailing list to note the status of the topic (consensus or conflits).
... 2.2.21 Message
Scribe: 2.2.22 Message Exchange Pattern (MEP)
... 2.2.23 Message Header
... 2.2.26 Message recipient
... 2.2.27 Message sender
MikeC: we have beaten wsdl to death but now we need to look at soap
and try and say something more meaningful on the sections.
... Does this approach seem resonable
MarkJ: Takes 2.2.22 Message Exchange Pattern (MEP).
MikeC: Describe MEP and reconcile it against the working draft and
the mailing list.
... Volunteers for 2.2.23 Message Header
Scribe: Is the MEP related to SOAP?
HAO: It seems Soap like.
... we would like to have something more abstract from soap
... will take 2.2.21 Message and also coordinate with MarkJ:
... will also take reliable messaging.
MikeC: Volunteers for 2.2.23 Message header
Scribe: ACTION: Hao takes 2.2.21 Message and reliable messageing
... ACTION: MarkJ will tahe 2.2.22 MEP
<dbooth> Shishir Garg
Scribe: ACTION: Shishir Garg to take 2.2.26 and 2.2.27 Message
sender and Recipient
... ACTION: Igor To look at what is the draft for deployed element and validate the working draft, mailing list.
DavidB: service requestor and provider need to be solidified and validated.
<mitrepauld> regrets - I thought I would have been able to dial in, but kept getting pulled away.
DavidB: should these concepts be in the docuement.
Scribe: ACTION: DavidO to take service requestor and provider
DavidB: there are a bunch around management.
MikeC: would it be better to have someone from the management task force take these topics or would it be better to have an independant view.
<dbooth> 2.2.3 Choreography, 2.2.4 Choreography Description Language, 2.2.5 Correlation
Scribe: ACTION: MikeC to take Chorography
... ACTION: MikeC to take Chorography description
... ACTION: MikeC to ping Heather about taking correlation.
MikeC: Be advised we will be assigning sections to all members in good standing over the next few weeks.
Scribe: ACTION: To the group to follow up on their issues. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/issues/wsa-issues.html