|
Chairs: |
|
|
|
Enigmatec |
||
|
Oracle |
||
|
W3C Staff Contacts |
|
|
|
|
|
Attendees:
|
Choreology Ltd |
|
|
Cisco Systems Inc |
|
|
Commerce One |
|
|
Intalio Inc. |
|
|
Nortel Networks |
|
|
Novell |
|
|
Oracle Corporation |
|
|
SAP AG |
|
|
Sun Microsystems, Inc. |
|
|
TIBCO Software |
|
|
evren@cs.umd.edu |
University of Maryland (Mind Lab) |
|
W. W. Grainger, Inc. |
Mayilraj Krishnan from Cisco volunteered to scribe.
The following is a list of recent scribes (inorder): Ravi Byakod, Martin Chapman, Steve Ross-Talbot, Monica Martin, Nick Kavantzas, Ed Peters,Anthony Fletcher, Jeff Michkinsky, Dinesh Shahane, Greg Ritzinger, Ed Peters, David Burdett,Ivana Trickovic, Ugo Corda, Assaf Arkin, MonicaMartin, Carol McDonald, Nick Kavantzas, Tony Fletcher, Mayilraj Krishnan, Francis McCabe, Jeff Mischkinsky, David Burdett ,John Dart, MonicaMartin,Tony, Fletcher, Jim Hendler, Kevin Liu, TonyFletcher, Jon Dart, DavidBurdett,Ed Peters, Greg Ritzinger, Monica Martin, LenGreski, Jean-JacquesDubray,Monica Martin, Mayilraj Krishnan, FrancisMcCabe, Michael Champion,AbbieBarbir, David Burdett, Jon Dart, Carol McDonald,Yaron Goland, LeonardGreski,Ed Peters, Greg Ritzinger, Daniel Austin, PeterFurniss, Jim Hendler
6th January Minutes. Approved unanimously
December F2F minutes. Approved unanimously
ACTION: Chairs to re-introduce the topic of choreography and orchestration at the next conf call (0106) DONE
ACTION: Need to go thru the issues DB next time – Martin (0106). DONE
ACTION: Chairs to communicate f&p requirement to WS-CG (0113) IN PROGRESS
ACTION: WSDL MEP agenda item to be organised by chairs (0113) IN PROGRESS
To be done for jan 20th
ACTION: Chairs to send formal request to WSPEL Chairs requesting progress statements from them (0113) IN PROGRESS
ACTION: Steve/Martin to potentially arrange a follow-up for the requirement doc. DONE
ACTION: chairs should also ask marco to see if his requirements are captured within the latest req-doc (0113) IN PROGRESS
Waiting for next draft of the requirements document.
ACTION: record exceptions/errors as an issue. (0113) IN PROGRESS
Needs to be put in issues db
ACTION: log as an issue is fork/join covered as requirements (0113) IN PROGRESS
Needs to be put in issues db
ACTION: log as an issue if external/internal choice is covered as requirements (0113) IN PROGRESS
Needs to be put in issues db
[ ED: based on our discussion of issue 342, is this already covered?]
ACTION: steve as an editor will organize a call for the req-editors to review the reqs doc DONE
ACTION: nick or dave to send latest Visio diagram to list DONE
ACTION: Yves to add editor's draft on the public page (0113) IN PROGRESS
Yves needs an HTML version to post.
ACTION: Chairs to table discussion of Choreology contribution for a Jan conf call. DONE
ACTION: Nick to define the features required of an intermediate end-point language (0113) IN PROGRESS
ACTION: convert ER diagrams into UML class diagrams (0113) IN PROGRESS
ACTION: editors to propose documents and table of contents (0113) IN PROGRESS
ACTION: Monica to confirm hosting east coast and propose a date. (0113) IN PROGRESS
ACTION: Chairs to look into a far east meeting in sep/oct (0113) IN PROGRESS
ACTION: Chairs to organise an issues conference call in which the regular conf call is used with members to look at the issue in bugzilla (possibly the Jan6th conf call) (0113) IN PROGRESS
Partially done at this meeting.
ACTION: Chairs to write proposal for group in defense of f&p in WSDL. (0113) IN PROGRESS
ACTION: SRT to ask Honda,Yoshida, and Milner if they would be prepared to be invited experts. (0113) IN PROGRESS
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, 1202, 1209,0106, 0113)
ACTION: Requirements Editors–
Review requirements doc by Jan
13th including issues list review against document.
(0106) DONE
SRT: Remaining editing to be done by Jan 20. Suggesting to
have a editing call
ACTION: DA to schedule the editors meeting
SRT suggested the team to get the email traffic
SA to send the document on Jan 20th and get feedback, publish on the month end.
Specification Editors Report
Nothing to report
SRT: Martin, do you want to introduce?
MC: I went thru the whole bug list. Try to classify and assign them to the appropriate people. Mostly looking for req issues. Clearly some of them could be closed. But it is a resolution to the group. Assume Steve will handle the req issues, if it is not req issues leave it open.
SRT: ok.
MC: I have to act together and do some work on those issues.
SRT: I could see some issues related to requirements. I sent the issues summary to the group.
SRT: suggesting 304 to remove.
DA: We presumably has some ideas what the users need.
TF: Suggest to close by the requirements document. The users had a chance to look at the requirements document.
SRT: I think it is sensible way.
SRT: Is it acceptable for everybody because we have requirements document?
SRT: Bug 304 closed.
SRT: Next 305. Proposal to close this?
SRT: Any agreement or disagreement?
SRT: Bug 305 closed. We do only external observable behavior.
DB: We cannot stop the users using for internally.
SRT: Bug 311?
New Requirements: Should not tell how to store it? Every choreography description should provide some information to store and retrieve such as unique identity.
TF: Steve, you asked how to search for the choreography for these kinds of things, taxonomies etc has been discussed in some con call.
SRT: unique identifier is one thing. Choreography must support some metadata. We cannot tell what are the kind of that information?
DB: All we can do is very generic mechanism to include the metadata.
DA: Let us worry about not the solution and focus on the requirement.
SRT: It was raised by me and also the semantics also related to choreography. Both were highly related. I am happy to close this with respect to the unique identity and ability to export metadata of the choreography.
SRT: Bug 311 closed
SRT: Any other issues?
SRT: Bug 342
DA: what is the relation between the first and second point in the issue?
SRT: Condition is external or internal
MC: Discussed internal decision and external decision.
MC: We need decision points, actual vote is to go which path to go?
DB: Depends on which type of choreography we are talking about?
MC: decision points are computational or not? Coming down to we need xpath or not?
Nick: There was a case from Yaron that language should not specify the conditions or xpath expression? Abstract choreography level we don’t need computational level and conditions could be described in English. If we can go down to the concrete level we should not lock ourselves and go down to the computational level.
MC: Possible to define the externally observable choreography. We need to use joins, branches etc.
SRT: We have time to prove whether it is possible to describe the external behavior without using conditional expressions. Let us think practically. Statement is not relevant because we have to focus on the people using web services for choreography using conditional expressions.
Nick: Yaron’s argument is mainly about the complexity of the conditional expressions?
Question is mainly on the complexity.
DA: It is completely impossible to solve the composition problem without conditional expression.
MC: I don’t know about it.
DB: I agree with you Daniel.
SRT: fork/join use case is a good one. I don’t think it is possible to do external observable behavior without the conditional expression.
DB: My suspicion is non-trivial cases we need conditional expression.
SRT: Resolved. We have usecases and requirements to justify it.
Nick: You can do it without context free grammar? I think we need conditional expressions.
SRT: we cannot do it without turing complete.
SRT: Bug 342 Closed.
Liaison:
SRT: WS-I stuff. Jeff pointed out we cannot get anything (technical benefits), working with WS-I. I don’t see any technical benefits.
MC: Any new group started for the requirements, we can ask the WS-I board for the use cases etc
SRT: The assumption is over and above what we do at W3C, can not gain any technical benefit for working group.
General feeling that there are no TECHNICAL benefits to w3c joining ws-i. From a choreo perspective.
SRT: started with JJ and ended with DB.
SRT: probably it is about layering of the choreography.
DB: Visio diagram has been posted. Let me look at it.
DB: Three different levels of model. Top layer is abstract and next layer is little concrete, (what the order is going to look, whether to use reliable messaging, security) and final layer is concrete & detailed layer where the actual messages will be sent it to be specified. The argument is we could have more or less. What level of details has to be put in each layer?
MC: I think this is a big topic that has to be in the agenda. Somewhere in the middle the discussion went to orchestration and choreography etc.
SRT: Read some email content from JJ. Anything to discuss?
DA: I agree with Martin to have this item in the general agenda.
SRT: we will come back to binding, context etc.
Nick: I think JJ is talking about the layering of specifications. How each spec should be used? At what level? Etc. Agree with Context and Binding has to be addressed. But I don’t think that was the one JJ has been discussing in the thread.
SRT: Is there any more work to be done on the WS stack level?
DA: Agree
DB: How to do?
DA: Creating the dependencies map
Nick: Started in F2F . Coordination, stage alignment etc. As part of spec document we started capturing. Not sure you want to create the diff document
DA: Have to capture the dependencies on us also
SRT: Agree.
NEW ACTION: Chairs to raise a topic of Binding, Context etc.
SRT: Would like to close the call and hopefully we will have the requirements document before the next call.
Meeting Closed
NEW ACTION: Chairs to raise a topic of Binding, Context etc.