2. Confirm scribe
3. Approve minutes
4. Action Item Review
5. Standing tracking items (a section designed to ensure that longer running items are properly tracked)
· Mission Statement
· Requirements (progress/review)
· Issue tracking (progress/review)
· Task forces (progress/review)
6. Threads (on the archive not covered elsewhere in the agenda)
W3C Staff Contacts
Cisco Systems Inc
National Computerization Agency
SeeBeyond Technology Corporation
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
University of Maryland (Mind Lab)
Raw IRC log at: http://www.w3.org/2003/07/15-ws-chor-irc
Jim Hendler, MIND Lab, kindly volunteered to scribe for the meeting.
The following is a list of recent scribes (in order): Kevin Liu, 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
srt: need to approve 3 sets of minutes
June face to face minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2003Jul/att-0038/June_F2F_2003-0.htm
correction on f2f minutes - amended to reflect a change on one of the comments. Greg to send in correction
corrected minutes at : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2003Jul/att-0052/June_F2F_2003-0.htm
RESOLVED: approve minutes of f2f as true and correct record (as amended)
RESOLVED: approve minutes of July 1 telecon
RESOLVED: approve minutes of July 8 telecon
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.
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: Chairs, Include ‘Burdett’ ML on the agenda when David is back (15th July, 2003 teleconference?) and
decide what to do with it. Ongoing put on agenda for 22 July.
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.
ACTION: AlB will develop a use case / scenario for this broadcast use case. Ongoing
NEW ACTION: SRT to contact Alistair on the progress of his action.
ACTION: DB - Need design collaboration use case. Ongoing
ACTION: Yves, determine what format is required for the documents we produce. Done. email sent [ed I see no email in the archive]
ACTION: DB to check with Commerce One legal, issues around IP and report back. Ongoing.
ACTION: SRT/MC to find venue in Seattle. Done (see next action)
ACTION: Steve ask Attachmate to make a formal offer to the group. Done
discussion of Attachmate offer.
Formal invite from Attachemate sent to list [ed I see no email in the archive]
no objections to Attachmate offer, thus the chairs will accept their kind offer.
NEW ACTION: Chairs to accept attachmate offer, work out logistics
ACTION: YL to give GR and DA editing access to Bugzilla. Done
ACTION: MC/SRT to summarize issues process. Done
ACTION: Greg will go through the June F2F minutes and log those issues. Done
ACTION: Martin propose text for call-back use case. Ongoing
ACTION: Martin to post a straw poll via email about having f2f in Australia in Dec. Done.
Poll at: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34340/20030709/ and continues another day or two
Mission statement work continues, resubmission of requirements continues
use cases are being written up as separate documents that can be edited in
spreadsheet sent to WG - for those with problems w/HTML
yellow titles in reqs sheet - in "category" is a list of numbers --
Sari Shein is really Steve Ross-Talbot (don't ask)
Steve: attempts being made by Sari/Steve to link the requirements to the emails where they were raised
Steve: try setting your user in the general preferences
aim is to edit requirements text which will make requirements doc and requirements text correspond (and the uri will take you to the email it was raised in)
final version expected Thurs or Fri
comma separated numbers at end are an attempt to link reqs to each other
Daniel says we expect a reasonable draft for discussion by next conf call
currently around 68 reqs (we started from 0)
please send comments to SRT copying Daniel and other editors - please don't edt the sheet - send sep. comments
Greg has entered issues from f2f. Martin has action to harvest from other minutes.
Martin sent out issues process – comments please.
Task force reports
Monica: a task list is being sent
Input task force - Mayilraj has joined the group. See mail tagged by [InputTF]
Requirements taks force is moving along well (even if they didn'tknow they were a task force)
srt: Monica sent an email, Tony sent some followup, lots of discussion
discussion of "web service composition" v. "choreography" composition
DavidB: composing choreographies between sets of choreographies makes sense
DavidB: but if we focus on composing a single service, then it seems we are in BPEL space
martin: web service comp results in a new web service -- chor composition results in something diff
DB: but you might expose this as a composition
Discussion of exposing the composition as a web service
mc: don't think a choreography is exposed as a web service
DB: discusses composition of a choreography -- quote followed by order example
mc: but we need to be careful to distinguish WS comp vs. Chor comp - so we need a good definition of WS comp
MC: think we build choreographies on top of WSs
DB: more like building a program out of modules - the thing created could be a program itself
DB: but if there is no single entity in control - then maybe this is a chor
srt: is a chor executable? (discussion of whether this is true)
tony: it's not executable in the sense of being executable on a single processor/process etc
tony: I think it requires at least two process cooperating to be a chor
tony: from these we could build more complex, multiparty choreographies
Tony: discussion of roles and how they're used in choreographies
tony: summary - 1 - two systems and a single message between them is elemental chor, 2 - adding messages before or after v. adding a new role - latter is core comp
jimh-scribe, you wanted to ask where recursion grounds
jimh: tony's model of how to ground a chor makes sense to me -- if the recursion (composition) ends at a WS instead of a message, then WS Comp == Chor Comp
david: sending messages may be where this grounds (lots of background stuff could be happening)
davidB: proposes these things are in sort of a hierarchy -- the business chor is backed by the messaging chor which is backed by ...
This means that we ground at a minimal system that has two service that run in parallel and have some message exchange, n'est pas?
db: so it is really abstraction that is important
db: this ties into composition as well -- the higher level can refer to "states" of the underlying protocol - and this means same chor could ground in multiple ways
yaron: makes sense to me -- and we also want to surface things that could be "messages" even if they're not a message per se
yaron: so we would need a couple of ways to somehow make things look like messages
yaron: and second issue would be what do we expose in the chor
db: and this sort of state-based thing could be useful
MC: are we getting off topic? DB: this is sort of a different view of what a composition it
MC: important - this ground differently -- i.e. a chor doesn't ground to a WS, but to something else (message or whatever)
srt: so how would I use a chor if it isn't realizable as a WS -- how do I hook into one as an "observer"
mc: would there be entry points to a chor -- (answer own question) yes, and these entry points would be based on messages. Observability is more like "sniffing" or something
mc: so observability would have to be something where you watch the participants
srt: but you are talking about entry points for composing w/another chor -- but how do we synchronize, link? Must be an input/output - and some way to say "these now cooperate -- and like this"
mc: so challenge would be to come up w/this mechanism
srt: (and Jeff M said something like this) -- if you have two chors, and you dont' need to change them, then they're really one chor, not two...
srt/mc: If you have two choreographies, A and B, and there is no observable commuication between them -- they are clearly two separate chors
srt: but if there is communication between them (some glue) then it becomes one chor (i.e. so composition is adding the glue)
mc: suppose we have B and C and no observable between them -- I now create a chor called A, which links to B and C, then I've created one Chor of A,B,C (and this is composition)
DB: and Tony's example is exactly this
mc: but we have to be careful about instances v. definitions of choreographies
jimh: we need to make sure to get the "recursion" correct -- that is if we ground at a WS doesn't that make us WS comp again?
mc: we must be careful
srt: I think it is back to what Tony said earlier -- a minimum chor is two WSs and an observable message betw them
srt: if we ground this in WSDL, then we would need two WSDL based WS's atthe bottom
mc: but what about below that - a WS and a client interacting w/that -- is that a chor?
srt: could be - but if we ground at WSDL, they must both be WSDL
jimh: summarizes where we are -- we have an observable message, and that is the important thing
mc/srt: so what we're talking about is whether we're grounding at WSs per se (WSDL) or would a "dumb" client count
ISSUE TO BE CAPTURED: where do these ground - we seem to have captured the idea of message in the middle
(logged in bugzilla as http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=276)
mike: <slippery-trout> do chor's ground on messages or on "message exchange patterns"
mc: that is something we would need to work out
(some discussion of this continues)
frankM: brings up "rendezvous" issues (i.e. even one message has issues) - so wherever we ground we'll have issues of what the minimum entity is
fm: so whether a MEP or message, we'll need to figure out where our "atomicity" ends
srt: when we talk chor - we have to be careful to use the term "Web Service" Choreography -- MEPs may or may not be WS choreographies... WSDL may be required to make it Web Service per se, and we need to own the term "WEB SERVICE CHOREOGRAPHY" and not just arbitrary choreography
david: this seems to depend on what a WS is defined as (scribe misses detail - concerns WSDL v. messaging)
david: but agree w/you that the issue is important
Any other Business
srt: suggests we suspend telecons for August
mc: TFs could use the time
mc: we should have them or not
others: informal didn't work
suggested that Hugo would point out that taking a month off when we're already months behind is a problem
MC: suggests that we've done a lot - we could use the time to step back, get some stuff moving more strongly, and then get in shape for f2f.
mailing list to continue - just not telecons (Mc)
srt: makes various observations that are not recorded -- take the time off suggested
PROPOSED: to have no calls during August *dates to be announced to WG*
RESOLVED: to have no telecons during August
New ACTION: SRT to inform WG of schedule for dates we will not be meeting
The chairs brought the meeting to a close.
ACTION: SRT to contact Alistair on the progress of his action.
ACTION: Chairs to accept attachmate offer, work out logistics 
ACTION: SRT to inform WG of schedule for dates we will not be meeting