|
Chairs: |
|
|
Oracle |
|
|
Enigmatec |
|
|
|
|
|
W3C Staff Contacts |
|
|
|
|
Attendees:
|
BEA Systems |
|
|
Choreology Ltd |
|
|
Commerce One |
|
|
Intalio Inc. |
|
|
Nortel Networks |
|
|
Novell |
|
|
Oracle Corporation |
|
|
Oracle Corporation |
|
|
SAP AG |
|
|
SeeBeyond Technology Corporation |
|
|
Sun Microsystems, Inc. |
|
|
TIBCO Software |
|
|
webMethods, Inc. |
irc log at http://www.w3.org/2003/11/25-ws-chor-irc
Greg Ritzinger (Novell) volunteered to scribe.
The following is a list of recent scribes(inorder): Ed Peters, David Burdett, Ivana Trickovic, Ugo Corda, Assaf Arkin, MonicaMartin, Carol McDonald, NickKavantzas, Tony Fletcher, MayilrajKrishnan, Francis McCabe, Jeff Mischkinsky,David Burdett ,John Dart, Monica Martin,Tony, Fletcher, Jim Hendler, Kevin Liu, TonyFletcher, Jon Dart, David Burdett,Ed Peters, Greg Ritzinger, Monica Martin, LenGreski, Jean-Jacques Dubray,Monica Martin, Mayilraj Krishnan, FrancisMcCabe, Michael Champion, AbbieBarbir, David Burdett, Jon Dart, Carol McDonald,Yaron Goland, Leonard Greski,Ed Peters, Greg Ritzinger, Daniel Austin, PeterFurniss, Jim Hendler
Minutes 18th November 2003
Minutes were approved
ACTION: Please let SRT know if they are planning to attend the F2F as they need to know the accommodation in the college.
SRT: venue is booked, registration page should be up soon. DONE
The F2F dinner will be sponsored.
ACTION: Steve/Yves – set up a registration page for the December FTF. DONE
Page is up though it was noted there is no actual choices or text entry for dietary requirements.
ACTION : chairs look at WSA issues process and recommend whether it should be adopted by this group. (IN PROGRESS, 1021, 1028, 1111,1118, 1125)
ACTION: chairs write a report for WS-BPEL technical committee prior to our F2F (IN PROGRESS 1125)
Has to be ready for discussion on next con call (3 dec)
ACTION: Editors of the requirements are directed to look at the issues list and filter eachissue in a similar way to the filtering method used at the F2F. To be takeninto account at editors meeting in November. ( IN PROGRESS, 1021,1028,1111, 1118, 1125)
ACTION : SRT Brought semantics question to the TAG. Onchairs coordination call, he asked about semantics for/of choreography. A new SemanticWebServices Interest Group is beingformed in about one month. Issue will be sent to that group when it is formed.
DONE
ACTION: Steve RT will send a one-page summary of his thoughts DONE
Semantics summary sent to chor list and to SWIG list.
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 whichrequirements we captured so far regarding transactions. (NO PROGRESS,1021, 1028, 1111, 1118, 1125)
NEW ACTION: SRT will clarify Daniel's status
ACTION:(Tony) Explain (in email) thesubstance of the issue (on transactions).DONE
Tony sent out the following email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Nov/0050.html
ACTION: SRT to edit section 2.1-2.3 to make clear what is meant by contract. (IN PROGRESS 1125)
ACTION: SRT to clarify use of “business transaction” using more neutral terminology if possible in section 2.1 (IN PROGRESS 1125)
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, 1118, 1125)
SRT asked for Requirements Document feedback ASAP.
SRT - Diagramming, comments/suggestions on wording, etc. would be helpful.
MM: Please log issue related to CSF-04. As well as comments made by myself on 18 Nov 2003 and re-forwarded to members' list today. Thank you.
MM: comment made to req. doc. by working members will improve overall document?
SRT: yes
Issue tracking (progress/review)
Nothing to report
BurdettML & OracleML
David reported on Editor's Group progress. David and Nick are working on document that will be basis for discussion in the Editor's Group.
David - Document describes meta-model for CDL
Martin - Editors have no special powers, all working group members can contribute., they are just the ones responsible for document production and folding in issue resolutions and meeting decisions.
Matin - quicker that working group can see something for editor's group the better.
Monica - BPSS liaison report.
Yaron - asked why we need BPSS and this group. What is relationship?
Monica - Noted that there has been discussion that both can work together.
Question came up regarding if there is more than 1 BPSS group (OASIS, UNCFACT)
Yaron - BPSS is a chor. definition.
Martin - wait for BPSS req. doc. and see if there is overlap, etc.
Yaron - if BPSS had WSDL binding there may be no need for WS-CHOR.
Monica - BPSS starting to discuss web services.
Martin - suggested inviting BPSS to come and talk to this group.
SRT - move discussion to mailing list.
NEW ACTION: Get back to Monica on invitation to BPSS group.
Tony sent an email proposing requirements for the empty security system: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Nov/0048.html
Tony - discussed w/ Ugo, mandatory security policies do not need to appear chor. lang.
Tony - needs to be a way of adding some security into the choreography.
David - it will be difficult to describe all the different security policies in the choreography.
Martin - equated security issue with reliability issue.
David - gave example of security requirement specific to chor., signature failure.
Martin - these are just exceptions.
David - needs to be a way of identifying these exception types.
Jeff - too low a level to discuss as requirement.
SRT - Catagorizing messages is a useful concept for chor., but this has nothing to do w/ security.
Tony - we should support business decisions regarding security of messages.
Ugo - business decisions should stay outside what we define. Hooks to support it are fine.
SRT - Message security is routing, which is out of scope. Sees value in leveraging security.
Jeffm: there will never be ONE mechanism
David - need assertion mechanism
David - assert combination of "things" that will be used for a particular web service.
Martin - we have logged this issue before.
SRT / Martin - its a web service issue.
ISSUE: Security, ensure it’s covered in an issue related to specifying policy/assertions.
Tony sent an email querying the use of role and behaviour type in OracleML: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Nov/0049.html
Nick - to Tony, is it a matter of English in the proposal?
Definitions form the glossary:
Role: The identification of some behavior within a process definition or a choreography. A partner or party can play a role within a business collaboration. Note: In some choreographies, the same participant may be bound to multiple roles, or a role may be bound to different participants at different times during the execution of a choreography.
Participant: A participant can be bound to a role or an abstract designation, via a URI when a choreography is performed. Note: In some choreographies, the same participant may be bound to multiple roles, or a role may be bound to different participants at different times during the execution of a choreography.
Nick - multiple interfaces can become a role.
Nick- operations -> interfaces -> roles -> participants
Tony - distributor type could take on a number of roles, each role will need to use any number of interfaces
Tony - don't know instances at deployment time
Nick - are you suggesting adding "partner type"?
Tony - you do need it.
NEW ACTION: Nick to see if roles/participants fit with forth coming meta model
Monica - what normative are Dave and Nick using to define meta model?
Some UMLish diagrams exported as jpg/png.
ACTION: SRT will clarify Daniel's status
ACTION: Get back to Monica on invitation to BPSS group.
ACTION: Nick to see if roles/participants fit with forth coming meta model