Minutes W3C WS Choreography WG con call held on 1st July 2003, 1pm PDT.



Role Call:




 Martin Chapman


Steve Ross-Talbot




W3C Staff Contacts


Yves Lafon











Yaron Goland

BEA Systems

Anthony Fletcher

Choreology Ltd

Mayilraj Krishnan

Cisco Systems Inc

Fred Cummins


Francis McCabe

Fujitsu Ltd

Assaf Arkin

Intalio Inc.

Nickolas Kavantzas

Oracle Corporation

Jeff Mischkinsky

Oracle Corporation

Kevin Liu


Ugo Corda

SeeBeyond Technology Corporation

Michael Champion

Software AG

Monica Martin

Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Jon Dart

TIBCO Software

Leonard Greski

W. W. Grainger, Inc.

Daniel Austin

W. W. Grainger, Inc.


Raw IRC log at:



Amendments to the agenda


Prior to the official start of the meeting Steve Ross-Talbot amended the agenda, which was unopposed , such that item 7 on the agenda was replaced by a discussion about BPSS and its relation to Choreography.


Appointment of scribe:


Tony Fletcher, Choreology Ltd, kindly volunteered to scribe for the meeting.


Previous scribes (in order):  Jean-Jacques Dubray, Monica Martin, Mayilraj Krishnan, Francis McCabe, Michael Champion, Abbie Barbir, David Burdett, Jon Dart, Carol McDonald, Yaron Goland, Leonard Greski, Ed Peters, Greg Ritzinger, Daniel Austin, Peter Furniss, Jim Hendler



Minutes Approval


Draft minutes at  Draft Minutes from 24th June 2003



Minutes approved.


Actions Item Review


Mission Statement:  Daniel has updated the mission statement and sent out today - some comments have been made already.  It was suggested strongly that we accept something soon even if it is not perfect.


This action item led to considerable discussion on the current proposed mission statement.  Martin noted that four bullets had been proposed at the face-to-face for the mission statement and intent of some of these seemed to be missing from the current draft.  Martin expressed the opinion that he thought we had gone backwards a bit.  There was some debate on adding back in the phrase ‘peer-to-peer’.  It was suggested we needed have something on this topic as this was a differentiator from the WSBPEL group.


Steve and Frank wanted to add the word ‘semantics’, because we need this to get interoperability across enterprises.


This lead to further debate as Yaron said a firm no, just message types and sequencing was all that was required not any deeper meaning of any of the messages.  Steve and Frank made the point that it would be good to be able to document the goal the choreography is achieving.  Fred suggested that it would be sufficient to know just enough about the messages to know the sender's new state.


Eventually it was agreed to have an agenda item on the requirement to have some level of understanding of the meaning of messages and what that level should be, when Jim Hendler could be on the call - perhaps put on the agenda for two weeks' time.


Steve commented that he would like to have this sentiment in, but was relaxed about when the group addressed the issue and agreed that the group needed to service Yaron's main concerns first.  Need 'business cases' for and against.


New Action: Steve and Martin (as co-chairs)


Harvest summaries of WSCI, BPEL:  superseded by the suggestion for task forces made at the face-to-face meeting.


Requirements from the privacy discussions privacy/visibility use cases/requirements :  This action is in progress as part of the requirement editing process led by Daniel Auston.


Frank to send in URL for WSA privacy document:  Steve said he could not find the message with the URI on privacy use case.  Frank agreed to resend his e-mail.


Reconcile mission statements:  in progress.


David Burdett to come back with definitive email on IP position on BurdettML:  David Burdett was not on the call, so no definitive statement could be obtained on the ‘Burdett’ ML IP situation.  (David is thought be on holiday for the next two weeks.)  The group is expecting a definitive e-mail from him after checking with his lawyers - no progress.


Steve suggested that there was an action item missing from the last set of notes, which was on the next face-to-face.  He said that Attachmate have offered to host for two days in Seattle on the required dates, in return for them making a presentation to the group and being given observer status for duration of the meeting.  The group required a room for about 40 with the usual provisions including preferably Internet access.  Yaron volunteered to see if BEA could host in the Seattle area as a possible alternative. Steve suggested that we would need to make a decision by next conference call.


Task Force Organisation:  See agenda item below.


Action items for F2f not discussed at this meeting. Will be discussed next meeting:


ACTION: AlB will develop a use case / scenario for this broadcast use case.


ACTION: DB - Need design collaboration use case.


ACTION: Yves, determine what format is required for the documents we produce.


ACTION: All team members who submit a use case must provide in the template format by 1 July 2003 if they wish it to be in this release.


ACTION: DB to check with Commerce One legal, issues around IP and report back


ACTION: SRT/MC to find venue in Seattle


ACTION: YL to give GR and DA editing access to Bugzilla


ACTION: MC/SRT to summarize issues process.

Task Force Organisation

Martin said that each task force needs an owner who sets up any calls and reports back to the main group weekly.  There will be no separate mailing lists but people should designate the task force in the e-mail subject line.  During the face to face some people volunteered to lead particular task forces.


1)  Finish requirements

Daniel Austin, Abbie Barbir, Ed Peters, and Steve Ross-Talbot


2)  Harvesting ideas from WSCI, BPEL, BPSS, DAML-S, etc.

Mike champion and Monica Martin

It was agreed to start this group off on the basis of the general requirements expressed in the four bullet points agreed at the recent face-to-face.


3) Investigate relevant formal models

Frank and Jim Hendler agreed to own a formal model task force.  This would look at event calculus and pi-calculus, and it was suggested that it should also look at the David Burdett ML proposals.  It was suggested that there needed to be a feed around between these activities and the detailed requirements.


Martin said the whole group needed to consider the scope and content of the task forces some more.


There was some discussion on the positioning of the ‘Burdett’ ML, and it was suggested that it was moved to the 2nd task force as it may be a better basis for a solution than the other contenders.  However, it was eventually decided to move it out of the task forces altogether and for it to remain in the core group to be considered subsequently as it was ongoing work.  It was agreed to put ‘Burdett’ ML on the agenda when David is back and decide what to do with it.


Action on chairs to include on the agenda for 15th July, 2003 teleconference.


It was agreed that each task force should put together a task list for itself.


Action on the owners of each task force to do this and e-mail to the main group.



Last week Daniel put together a task list for this work, and he is now working through this.  He felt this team were still on track to present to the group on 8th July with a view to putting out to public review.


Issues tracking

Greg (Ritzinger) was not on the call so no progress could be recorded.  Martin said he still has an action from the past to track through past minutes for issues and put them into Bugzilla.



Yaron had asked for this to be put on the agenda.  He said he was not really an expert on BPSS, but had read the specification with interest.  He noted that it abstracted away from the transport layer and the group was now investigating Web Services.  He said it seems to have done the same job as Yaron thinks this group should be doing and he wondered why we should have two groups - was it a case of not invented here syndrome??  Should the groups combine?


Yaron said that BPSS is based around about six fixed patterns (actually should probably be viewed as a single business transaction pattern with a number of allowable variations), which was suited to B2B and the formation of contracts.  Jean-Jacques gave some further explanation of BPSS and noted particularly that it had been designed in a certain context of business-to-business e-commerce and had a 15 year or more background within UN/CEFACT.  He felt that BPSS was basically a good solution for its context and requirements, but this group may want to adopt a wider remit.


Tony added that he understood that what Yaron and Jean-Jacques had said was correct and that Yaron's wish for liaison with the BPSS team was already partially fulfilled by the presence of Monica (Martin) and Jean-Jacques (Dubray) in this group as these two are also intimately involved with the continuing work on moving BPSS to version 1.1.  BPSS did have basically a single interaction pattern known as a business transaction with several allowable variations and had the strength of this being designed to meet business and legal criteria.  Collaborations between two parties could be constructed out of these business transaction ‘building blocks’, but the multi-party facilities were not well proved yet.  BPSS is related to the different UMM ‘Views’ (or in other words the UN/CEFACT Modelling Methodology (UMM) ‘stack’).  It was noted that it emanates from the UN/CEFACT commercial experience.  Thus BPSS is based a layered hierarchy of interconnected finite state machines.  Tony said he was currently relaxed about having an alternative to BPSS, if that alternative used a different underlying formalism.


It was agreed that we should have a liaison with the BPSS group and JJ urged that we should look seriously at the BPSS layered approach.  It was agreed that Monica and JJ should affect this liaison.  Jean-Jacques said he would try to get BPSS contributed by UN/CEFACT / TMG to W3C (particularly this WS-Choreography Group).


Any other Business

Steve put some items on the IRC channel to draw attention to a number of actions.






It was noted that this was a preliminary to a decision to form a new working group within W3C.


Issue: Mike champion raised the issue of budgets and locations for future face-to-face meetings.


The chairs brought the meeting to a close.


Action item summary


From previous meetings:






Craft and agree a Mission Statement for the group

Daniel Austin

Ongoing – Daniel has produced several iterations


David Burdett to come back with definitive email on IP position on ‘BurdettML’  The group is expecting a definitive e-mail from him after checking with his lawyers.

David Burdett

no progress.


Arrange hosting for September 2003 face-to-face in Seattle.

Martin and Steve

One possible host identified


Oversee the organisation of the task forces

Martin and Steve



Track through past minutes for issues and put them into Bugzilla




From 1 July 2003






Have an agenda item on the requirement to have some level of understanding of the meaning of messages and what that level should be, when Jim Hendler can be on the call - perhaps put on the agenda for two weeks' time.

Steve and Martin (as co-chairs)



Frank to (re-)send URL for WSA privacy document.

Frank McCabe

New – now done


Consider hosting the planned September 2003 face-to-face in Seattle.

Yaron Goland for BEA



Include ‘Burdett’ ML on the agenda when David is back (15th July, 2003 teleconference?) and decide what to do with it.

Steve and Martin (as co-chairs)



The owners of each task force to put together a task list for that task force, agree with task force members, and mail to the main group.

Task force owners / leaders