WS Choreography Conference Call Notes
April 15, 2003

Role call



Martin Chapman

Oracle Corporation

Steve Ross-Talbot

Enigmatec Corporation



W3C Staff Contacts


Hugo Haas


Yves Lafon






Yaron Goland

BEA Systems

Mayilraj Krishnan

Cisco Systems Inc

David Burdett

Commerce One

Paul Lipton

Computer Associates

Duncan Johnston-Watt

Enigmatec Corporation

Francis McCabe

Fujitsu Ltd

William Vambenepe


Yoko Seki

Hitachi, Ltd.

Assaf Arkin

Intalio Inc.

Ravi Byakod

Intalio Inc.

Richard Bonneau


Abbie Barbir

Nortel Networks

Steve Pruitt


Greg Ritzinger


Nickolas Kavantzas

Oracle Corporation

Kevin Liu


Ivana Trickovic


Steven White

SeeBeyond Technology Corporation

Monica Martin

Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Carol McDonald

Sun Microsystems, Inc.

William Eidson

TIBCO Software

Melanie Kudela

Uniform Code Council

Daniel Austin

W. W. Grainger, Inc.

Leonard Greski

W. W. Grainger, Inc.

Ed Peters

webMethods, Inc.

Approval of minutes

Minutes of last meeting approved.

Action item review

Resubmit use cases.

Not much seen about resubmitting of use cases

Steve asked people who have not submitted to resubmit

Action: Steve will strong arm people (includng himself) who have not submitted their use cases

Editors mailing list

In progress, due to be complete by the end of the week

Dave Chappel, XML Editor Ð Dave Chappel has submitted the email

Carol  McDonald (Sun) and Dave Chappel (Sonic Software) would look into hosting a face2face meeting in the future

Carol in progress

David not on the call

Harvesting Use Cases

No progress Open Action: Steve

Chairs to compose tasks for call

No progress Open Action: (Martin/Steve)

Extract requirements from the minutes

Action: Martin


Classifications in WSA Ð recorded in the outline of the requirements Ð closed

Face to Face Meeting

WS Grainger

Only issue WSG have is getting a decision from the group on dates and time

Several emails received on current date 23-27 June proposed date is bad

Propose 18-20 June instead Ð postpone discussion until the end of the conf call. (see below)

Requirements document

Steve: He needs to understand the timeline for the requirements document so that it can be published. Topic for future call: AGENDA ITEM

Discussion on Submitted Use Cases

Led by Martin Chapman

Submitted reference to doc to IRC (I'm not on IRC)

Use case focuses on what artifacts are required to plug into choreography

Company has process

New partner comes along

What do partner have to do to join in?

Assumes choreography has been pre-defined by bigger company

Two examples:

Car manufacturer with suppliers

Global car reservation system

Common feature is that the owner of the process tells everyone else what to do.


Do artifacts mean what definitions, interfaces etc are required? They are not design level artifacts.

Non requirement is design time artifacts

Can use the use case to drill down and identify the artifacts

Also focuses on the external aspects and bringing two companies together. The internal artifacts are not exchanged, what can you observe so that you can plug in across company boundaries.


Wondering if any information about what goes on behind the curtains is not necessary.


You only need to define what is on  the boundary in order to get the external boundaries to work


E.g. Sabre would want to know information about the user and their preferences e.g. for seats, meals


This is part of the info that is in the interface.


Reach consensus that if info like preferences is in the information then withdraws concern.


Examples don't read like use cases they are more like a story board. Can we have a more formal description of them.

Daniel will put out a proposal for formally recording use cases and the problem they are trying to address. Action Daniel


Use cases are usually about what happens in a real-life scenario this actor does this then another actor does that. No web services implications. They are not UML use cases and more a business scenarios.


Thinks UML style use cases are more useful including the systems and the actors interactions.


My use case covers design time

Decide to take off line


Talking about producing a standard language for defining choreographies. Need to define the business case very carefully, therefore something that is both business and technical. So far is only business focused, no description of technology used. We are in competition with Microsoft. They have more power than we do.

Any work that the W3C does has to have a clear role in the business community.

It is hard for us to be crisp and clear on what we do Ð Martin agrees.

Shouldn't be scared of Microsoft we are not in competition with them


Important to hold the line that we are complementary. Everything we have done so far is like this.


Should focus on Rosettanet and others and getting them involved.


David Ð you missed the point. You have the specs written in the WSCL what is their role.


What's a use case, is it design time or a higher level business artifact. The essential idea is that it looks at something outside the boundary and relates to the thing inside the boundary. So use cases can be at various levels of abstraction, from a business system with a workflow to a much more detailed interaction between subsystems. The challenge is that they (the use cases) are all over  the map and it might be helpful to refactor them into a specific format so that we can understand the level of abstraction that the use case is at.


Question? Daniel, we will present a UP based presentation on how to record use cases.


Intention is to take advantage of his boss a Use Case expert and plans to use this to help propose a formal approach to defining use cases. Assumes this will be a UP based use case with pre conditions, post conditions, diagram, etc Action Daniel

Len G ??

Need to agree on the content of the use case.


We should be able to cross reference the use cases with the requirements when we are done


Posts to IRC the links to use case work in the WS-I

Can recast second example in the correct format for a "proper use case"

Doesn't know how to describe a design-time use case. Action Will talk with Len offiline.


Discusses second use case

Retailer offers B2C use case where as stock is depleted, the stock levels go down until a point is reached where the goods get re-ordered to replenish stock levels.

Don't want to do this with a blocking RPC call, but instead come back later when the goods have been shipped. There is an extended asynchronous interaction between the warehouse and the manufacturer that results in the goods being retrieved. Resulting requirements

Long running processes

Correlating messages



The main issue is around time that causes a different approach. Do we encode time into the choreography?

Do we also search for services based on the time they take to run?


That's part of the idea of the use case. Discussions on the list on timeouts have been useful.

Ed peters

Rosettanet PIPs have specific mention of timeouts as does BPSS

Jean Jacques ??

With current technologies can't query to search on services based on time


Question, is delivery within a timeframe important

Len (Grainger)

Yes it is important and the relationships are specified contractually

?? Jean

Need to distinguish between a technical timeout and a business timeout

?? Are both out of scope

Technical too low level, business timeout is contractually agreed

Daniel ??

We do need a requirement that exceptions are handled including timeouts


One persons exception is another persons message


Need to separate the trigger from the message

Frank ??

Do we have guideline for what goes into the solution, e.g. is loose coupled?

Ans. Not yet


Modeling business time is an issue we have to deal with (raised by Steve). Need to spend time on a future conference call. Topic for future call.

Choreography Data Formats Ð reusable choreographies

Last call was cut off on the issue of ontologies and naming Ð we were swimming with the trout!

Is there a trout repellant.

Martin: We haven't adopted the trout

It should be the bumble bee Ð Steve says they have interesting choreography patterns

Defer to next week as an agenda item. David can't take minutes and discuss at the same time !!

Review of the requirements document


Has everyone looked at the Spring Fever edition of the requirements document?

This is the 0.0 version of the document. It's a place to start. Nothing carved in stone. Not normative.

Pay attention to editor's notes

Interesting parts are the abstract and introduction

Section 1.1 is controversial Ð definition of a choreography

Proposed a classification system for use cases in section 1.2

Requirements numbering might not be sequential with gaps because requirements have been dropped

The rest of the document is a place holder

Editors will get text added in.

Wants to know what has been forgotten Ð feedback needed Ð action all


Is it a use cases or a requirements document?

Daniel Ð its both


Should we include mission, goal and CSFs.


Thinks this is a good idea


In WSA, used CSF analysis to determine the requirements Ð worked very well for an architecture project

For choreography thought might be better to follow a use case driven choreography

But Frank (and others) think that a CSF approach is useful

Len G

Thinks that doing the CSFs will help us decide what should go in the Use Case.


Being able to tie back the specification back to the requirements and the CSF will be very useful for driving forward the specification.

Len Gretsky

Agrees this is a good idea


Excusing himself from the discussion as he is the editor and will accept decision of the group

Mike Champion

Was not really pleased with the way the CSF worked in the WSA. There was a fair amount of confusion. Would prefer to see it driven more from use cases.


Use cases don't help tie down the loose ends but is better for exploring the space.

Thinks the WSA was not critical enough of the approach.

Need to understand why it did not work on WSA


Can we analyze the use cases to determine requirements and CSFs


Thinks he agrees with David

What can we do better through using the results of this work


Offered to lead the CSF part of the work based on doing similar stuff as a management consultant


Action: Everyone should read the CSF part of the WSA spec to understand what it is about.


Suggested we should we spend time on CSFs during the F2F

Steve to Daniel

Two minutes to close the topic


Please everyone read the document Ð you must suggest alternate text and not just criticize

F2F Dates, straw poll

Martin/Steve: we have to decide the date today to comply the W3C

Melanie, Jeff , Yaron can't make 18-20 June

Location, Grainger, Lake Forest, Illinois. 18-20 June, meeting for 2.5 days until Friday lunch

Motion by Steve to schedule for 18-20 June  by Steve: No objections, motion passed

Need volunteers to think about September F2F and let Jeff  know. Ideally in Europe.

Look to hold it at SAP in Germany.

Yves to look at holding it in Nice.

Steve to look at an academic place: Edinburgh, St Andrews or Cambridge.

There are also cheap rooms at the Baghdad Hilton Ð Steve.

How about Oz, September is when the Rugby World cup is held Ð Duncan J-W.

June will be hard for Hugo.

Summary of Actions

Outstanding actions

All authors of use cases that have not resubmitted their use cases with business relevance are encouraged to do so. Hugo Haas: Creation of editors mailing list is in progress due to be complete by the end of the week Possible hosting of a future face 2 face meeting on the East Coast by Novel, Sun and Sonic respectively. Carol McDonald (Sun) in progress Dave Chappel (Sonic)  not on the call at this time Greg Ritzinger (Novel) in progress Steve Ross-Talbot: Harvesting Use Cases - No progress Steve Ross-Talbot/Martin Chapman: Chairs to compose tasks for call Ð open? Martin Chapman: Extract requirements from the minutes Ð open?

New actions

Motions passed

Next face to face meeting will be on 18-20 June hosted by W.W Grainger, Lake Forest, Illinois.