Minutes W3C WS Choreography WG con call held on 8th July 2003, 1pm PDT.


1.            Role Call
2.            Confirm scribe
3.            Approve minute

4.              Action Item Review



5.              Standing tracking items (a section designed to ensure that longer running items are properly tracked)

·                     Mission Statement (progress)
·                     Requirements (progress)
·                     Issue tracking (progress)
6.            Threads (on the archive not covered elsewhere in the agenda)
.                       Choreography protocol
.                       Choreography State Definition
.                       Proposed text for Choreography concepts
.                       Decision Points Requirement Proposals
7.            AOB.


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


Jean-Jacques Dubray


Francis McCabe

Fujitsu Ltd

Yoko Seki

Hitachi, Ltd.

Assaf Arkin

Intalio Inc.

Ravi Byakod

Intalio Inc.

Eunju Kim

National Computerization Agency

Abbie Barbir

Nortel Networks

Greg Ritzinger


Jeff Mischkinsky

Oracle Corporation

Kevin Liu


Ugo Corda

SeeBeyond Technology Corporation

Michael Champion

Software AG

Carol McDonald

Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Monica Martin

Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Jon Dart

TIBCO Software

Daniel Austin

W. W. Grainger, Inc.

Leonard Greski

W. W. Grainger, Inc.



Raw IRC log at: http://www.w3.org/2003/07/08-ws-chor-irc


Appointment of scribe:


Kevin Liu, SAP, kindly volunteered to scribe for the meeting.


The following is a list of recent scribes (in order):Tony Fletcher, Jon Dart, David Burdett, Ed Peters, Greg Ritzinger, Monica Martin, Len Greski, 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

June Face 2 Face minuteshttp://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/3/06/JuneF2FMinutes.html

             Minutes 1st July Con Call. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2003Jul/0017.html


Martin noted that 1st July minutes need the F2F actions to be included. Will defer approval till next week


steve asks for comments for f2f minutes. Jon mentioned some changes needed.

steve indicated will leave it in un-approved status until next week



Action Item Review



ACTION: DA will do the wordsmith, summarize and put together revised mission statement. Ongoing. See agenda item below


ACTION:Chairs, Arrange hosting for September 2003 face-to-face in Seattle.


ACTION:Chairs, Oversee the organisation of the task forces. Ongoing. Not all TFs kicked off yet


ACTION:Martin, Track through past minutes for issues and put them into Bugzilla. Ongoing.


NEW ACTION: Greg will go through the June F2F minutes and log those issues.


ACTION: Chairs, 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. Ongoing


ACTION:Yaron, Consider hosting the planned September 2003 face-to-face in Seattle. DONE

Unfortunately BEA does nit have a room big enough in the Seattle area.


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


ACTION:TF owners, 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. Ongoing. (merge with 3rd action above?)

Monica: TF not started yet. Not talked with Daniel in progress

Frank: semantics tf - in progress. Email sent to group

Question as to where burdettML goes. Mike Champion pointed out that it is really a sample output, not a sample input,

but the same disciline can be used to evaluate it. See previous action point.


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


ACTION:DB - Need design collaboration use case.  Ongoing


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


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.  Ongoing. Its still not too late!


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


ACTION:SRT/MC to find venue in Seattle. Ongoing

Steve: Attachmate is the only offer we have. They are not w3c members, but are considering joining.


New ACTION: Steve, ask Attachmate to make a formal offer to the group


ACTION:YL to give GR and DA editing access to Bugzilla. Ongoing            Yves reports this should be done, but Greg and Daniel should confirm.


ACTION:MC/SRT to summarize issues process. Ongoing.

MC has to restart, as the dog ate the first draft.


Mission Statement


Steve asked if anybody want to discuss the mission statement again


where we are: current rewording on the list should stop, and we should restart the with tidying up the mission statement (aka bullet points) agreed in f2f. This is just to turn it into proper sentences, punctuation etc. When done it will be put into the requirements document.



Daniel indicate that we should be done with the mission statement




Daniel: we have the master document, and have more in the requirement database, will be incoporated into the document in couple of days


Martin C: have checked with WS-I about using the call-back use case. the best way is to use it by reference


Daniel asked the group if it's ok to use it by reference? no objection from the group


correction: too early to indicate "no objection". more discussion followed. Martin will propose some text before a decision is made


New ACTION: Martin propose text for call-back use case




Monica: there are discussion about web services composition. also see message from JJ about choreography composition


Martin C - service composition is related to wsdl interface i.e. compose a set of wsdl serives and define a new wrapper wsdl,  choreography composition is not the same


Tony F: the problem we should be focusing on should not be web services composition which is about taking two services and make a new one.

YaronG: +1!

MChapman: +1

Tony F (summarized): Consider a system A that sends an order to system B, and system B then sends a stock level inquiry to system C that responds with a stock level inquiry response, and then system B responds to system A with a positive or negative order response message. We have here two separable choreographies: an order placement choreography, and a stock inquiry choreography.  We can compose them into a single overall choreography involving the order and stock by noting the linking events at B (in this case - this is obviously just simple example).


Frank M: general problem of web services choreography composition is not entirely out of scope of this group

Martin questioned about the difference b/t chor comp and service comp


Jon D: service composition - composing wsdl is visible to clients (?). in choreography case, wsdl is not visible to clients

No .. if only use WSDL, composite nature of app is not visible .. if use choreography to compose then it may be visible.


Steve RT: choreography may be based on abstract process, but w3c doesn't have it.  


Some off-topic discussion on BPEL


Steve RT: back to composition of choreographies if a choreography is a web services, does it have a life cycle? is its operation visible?

MChapman: a choreography is not itself a web service i.e. it does not offer a wsdl interface

MChapman: so question is how we can hook two choreographies together

LenGreski: I'm wondering why we would want multiple choreographies. What benefit does this add over a single choreography. Is reuse of choreographies gilding the lily, too much complexity for the benefit?

Fgm: No, reuse is of the essence for productivity gains

MChapman: but two types of reuse - reuse of partial definitions in a document (solved by include usually) and reuse of self contained choreographies


Steve: to fully understand this, we need a use case if not yet


Any other Business

Where should we have our December F2F ?


Martin: we have one offer from Australia. Notice that there are push backs in other WGs for  traveling to Australia due to budget constraints. Would like to get the groups thought. Some straw poll would help

CarolMcD: yes mate !

            SRT: I could attend if that is where it is

            Yves: I could attend

Len: not sure if company policy allow at this point of time

carolMcD: does it cost much more than other travel?

MChapman: No, but hard to get really cheap flights!


New ACTION: martin to post a straw poll via email about having f2f in Australia in Dec


The chairs brought the meeting to a close.



Summary of New Action Items



New ACTION: Steve ask Attachmate to make a formal offer to the group [10]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/07/08-ws-chor-irc#T20-21-23


New ACTION: Martin propose text for call-back use case [11]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/07/08-ws-chor-irc#T20-44-09


New ACTION: Martin to post a straw poll via email about having f2f in Australia in Dec [12]