|
Chairs: |
|
|
Oracle | |
|
Enigmatec | |
|
|
|
|
W3C Staff Contacts |
|
|
|
|
Attendees:
|
Commerce One | |
|
SAP AG | |
|
SeeBeyond Technology Corporation | |
|
Intalio Inc. | |
|
Sun Microsystems, Inc. | |
|
Oracle Corporation | |
|
Cisco Systems Inc | |
|
Choreology Ltd | |
|
Sun Microsystems, Inc. | |
|
Novell | |
|
Software AG | |
|
Hitachi, Ltd. |
irc log at http://www.w3.org/2003/11/11-ws-chor-irc
Davis Burdett (Commerce One) scribed.
The following is a list of recent scribes (inorder): Ivana Trickovic, Ugo Corda, Assaf Arkin, Monica Martin, Carol McDonald, Nick Kavantzas, Tony Fletcher, MayilrajKrishnan, Francis McCabe, Jeff Mischkinsky, David Burdett,John Dart, Monica Martin,Tony, Fletcher, Jim Hendler, 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, AbbieBarbir, David Burdett, Jon Dart, Carol McDonald, Yaron Goland, Leonard Greski,Ed Peters, Greg Ritzinger, Daniel Austin, Peter Furniss, Jim Hendler
Minutes 28th October 2003
Minutes were approved
Actions from previous meeting marked with *
Organisational
NEW ACTION: PLEASE Let SRT know if they are planning to attend the F2F as they need to know the accommodation in the college
SRT needs to know by Friday 14 Nov.
ACTION: Requirements editors to segment CR005 into a local exception handling case and a cross domain case. (STATUS???)
Action Item not understood. If no clarification id forthcoming it will be closed at next meeting.
ACTION : The chairs are seeking editors for the main specification document. Volunteers should signal their availability to the chairs via email. Volunteers will be selected next week. (IN PROGRESS, 1021, 1028, 1111)
<scribe> Emails received by Nick, David, Greg and Yaron
<scribe> Also a late request from Daniel Austin that he wanted to be an editor
<SRT> Any more volunteers?
<scribe> Monica expressed an interest in being an editor
<scribe> So candidates for consideration by the chairs: Nick, David, Yaron, Greg, Monica & Daniel
<scribe> Monica said that she expressed interest in being an editor earlier
<scribe> Chairs will announce editing team tomorrow.
ACTION : chairs look at WSA issues process and recommend whether it should be adopted by this group. (IN PROGRESS, 1021, 1028, 1111)
<scribe> Item: WSA Issues process - should wschor adopt it? -
Usecases/requirements
ACTION: Chairs to reply to Marco requesting clarification of his use case. ( IN PROGRESS, 1021, 1028, 1111)
<scribe> Item: Marco action item - still in progress
ACTION: Steve: Will put all the comments on draft requirements above into the requirements spreadsheet and send out. DONE
<scribe> Item: Comments on items in spreadsheet - sent out by SRT
ACTION: Editors of the requirements are directed to look at the issues list and filter each issue in a similar way to the filtering method used at the F2F. to be taken into account at editors meeting in November. ( IN PROGRESS, 1021, 1028,1111)
<scribe> Item: Filtering of issues list - editors did not have time to look at this in editors meeting - no progress
Issues
ACTION : SRT Brought semantics question to the TAG. On chairs coordination call, he asked about semantics for/of choreography. A new SemanticWeb Services Interest Group is being formed in about one month. Issue will be sent to that group when it is formed. (NO PROGRESS, 1021, 1028,1111)
ACTION: Steve RT will send a one-page summary of his thoughts ( NO PROGRESS, 1021, 1028, 1111)
<scribe> Item: Semantics - SRT has started drafting document, not complete. Will send out to group November 12
5. Standing tracking items (a section designed to ensure that longer running items are properly tracked)
Requirements next steps (progress/review)
ACTION: Daniel to look though document and see which requirements we captured so far regarding transactions. (NO PROGRESS, 1021, 1028, 1111)
<scribe> Item: action for Daniel - not on call - no progress
ACTION: (Chairs) Further discussion (on transaction) needs to be on agenda. (IN PROGRESS, 1028)
ACTION: (Tony) Explain (in email) the substance of the issue (on transactions).
Status: (IN PROGRESS, 1028, 1111)
<scribe> Item: Issue around transactions - Tony to provide input - Oracle CDL met requirements but not in a way that he liked.
<scribe> Tony has not sent an email but has missed earlier call. Problem is that the approach is a "compensation" only approach. Suggests that choreography language should be able to do this
<scribe> Tony is now reviewing OracleML again to work out what would need to be done to the language to answer his concerns.
<scribe> Tony has already sent a definition of a business transaction to the list - hasn't seen a reaction yet
<scribe> SRT to Monica - is compensation covered in the Glossary
<m2> from glossary: Compensation: A transaction may declare a set of compensating Activities that are to be executed when a successfully completed transaction needs to be undone. Compensation describes only the externally observable Activities required to undo the transaction; it does not describe how the transaction is undone by the implementation. It also may specify a strategy for a failed invoked web service.
· 7 US001_1
· 7 US002_1
· 7 Consolidated requirements (Daniels spreadsheet)
Issue tracking (progress/review)
BurdettML
OracleML
Semantics of a Web Service
*ACTION: Nick to clarify what is meant by Semantics of Web Services by email. DONE
Item: SRT to Nick. In the document that was circulated it talks about the semantics of a web service. What is meant by "semantics of a web service"?
<scribe> Nick - Really this is primarily an opportunity to put documentation in the language using description/comment types of elements.
<scribe> Tony - Two approaches, more conventional is an activity within a BPEL transaction. Compensation is an implementation technique for handling the problem but is not the only one. Need to point out that a transaction can end up either canceling or confirming
<scribe> Tony - doesn't like "when it's complete". This can work in some instances and not in others. A better approach is to say it depends on how you want to write your choreography definition will dictate what you want to do
<scribe> Tony - would prefer if it were all transactions.
09:37PM <scribe> David discussion with Tony. Better to think of a "main path" which is normally done and an "abnormal" definition which is the exception.
<scribe> Tony - we should distinguish between what happens in a transaction which has two outcomes when they terminate. Subsequent transactions can then vary in what they do.
<scribe> Tony - the question is do you want to have separate constructs for normal and "abnormal" behavior or do you treat them as just one.
<scribe> SRT - Do you need to distinguish between problems "within" a transactions and problems "between" transactions and does this make a difference to the choreography?
<scribe> Tony - definitely yes - they are different. If you have a complete choreography description then you might have more than one transaction going on concurrently using different roles.
<scribe> SRT - If you take this approach, then in a 3 party there are three separate domains and no coordination between them. Would it be the case that for each domain, would they need to own their own transaction space.
<scribe> Tony - No they are not following different transactions.
<scribe> Tony & SRT - discussion around ACID ...
<m2> This was directly related to my questions on transactions on the two use cases.
<scribe> ACID discussion moved to the list ...
Reworked use cases from the editors meeting at US001_1 and US002_1
<scribe> SRT - we have changed the format for the use cases in the F2F. Now consists of a base description and a group of variations.
<scribe> Martin - All of sorts of combinations of choreographies are possible. So you need to be able to fork, join, spawn, etc. This needs to be enumerated more in the requirements section
<scribe> Monica - How is extensibility handled by handling comments and descriptions to a choreography definition
<scribe> SRT - Agrees. However it is up to an implementer to decide how those comments are used.
<scribe> Martin - Comments are different from extensibility points.
<scribe> Monica - if true then perhaps we need to discuss if those annotations are computable then this can affect portability and interoperability
<scribe> Martin - If we are to define a computable language, then this should be part of the CDL. But in CDL we should think of them as strings
<scribe> SRT - Computability. There was a use where those parts that were computable were just annotations. This has led to a belief that meets the requirements that is not executable.
<scribe> SRT - while doing the quote request, we found an example where you wanted to buy books from Amazon and you place an order for 100 books. In this case you might get partial orders coming back as separate messages.
<scribe> If there is not an order completion message then this is not possible to determine unless you have something which is computable in the message.
<scribe> SRT - as soon as you go for "counted" lists, then you MUST have computability.
<scribe> SRT this is a problem that we will have to face.
<scribe> Martin - we need to get some text in the requirements document about computability.
<scribe> SRT & David +1 to Martin comments.
<scribe> Monica - in a previous group, there is a difference between executable that is followed at run time, and computable, which is used a more of a validation script.
<scribe> SRT - more comments on this topic are welcome
<scribe> Tony - where are we in getting these two use cases back into the document
<scribe> SRT - Editors need to know if the use cases that we have are sufficient
<scribe> SRT - the process is as follows: there are two use cases, requirements editors group has tried to make sure that they are clean and can be included
<scribe> SRT - now looking for comments from the list. The spreadsheet is the consolidated list of everything on the use cases.
<scribe> SRT - Next step is to include the CSFs as well as the preamble about the business uses of choreography.
<scribe> Want to get sign off at the next conference call.
<scribe> SRT so far only Monica has commented. IF no more comments, then assume that the use cases are "fine".
<scribe> Tony - by the next conference call we should try and get the complete document together.
<scribe> Tony/Martin/Steve - discussion around the importance of reviewing the use cases.
<scribe> SRT - reluctant to add completely new use cases. Would prefer that they could be included in the existing use cases.
<scribe> SRT any BPEL issues on liaison
<scribe> Monica - should BPEL look at just the main use case documents or some of the others as well.
<scribe> Monica - on BPSS - talking on what the guiding principles are. Getting some good participation. Need to wait and see.
<scribe> SRT - any other business?
<scribe> Monica - is the 19th for the F2F a half day ... SRT – yes 19 will be a half day.
<scribe> Steve - will set up a registration page for F2F by end of this week.
NEW ACTION: Steve/Yves – set up a registration page for the December FTF
<scribe> Monica - where is the evaluation between WS CDL and Burdett ML.
Once editors are appointed progress can be made on this.
NEW ACTION: PLEASE Let SRT know if they are planning to attend the F2F as they need to know the accommodation in the college
SRT needs to know by Friday 14 Nov.
NEW ACTION: Steve/Yves – set up a registration page for the December FTF.