Mayilraj Krishnan scribed
The following is alistof recent scribes (in order): Tony Fletcher, David Burdett ,Kevin Liu, Jeff Mischkinsky, Monica Martin, Nick Kavantzas, Greg Ritzinger, David Burdett, Tony Fletcher, Monica Martin, UgoCorda, Mayilraj Krishnan, 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, Monica Martin, Carol McDonald, Nick Kavantzas, TonyFletcher, Mayilraj Krishnan, 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, Len Greski, Jean-Jacques Dubray,Monica Martin, Mayilraj Krishnan, Francis McCabe, Michael Champion, Abbie Barbir, David Burdett, Jon Dart, Carol McDonald,Yaron Goland, Len Greski, Ed Peters, Greg Ritzinger, Daniel Austin, Peter Furniss, Jim Hendler
Minutes 6th April2004 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2004Apr/att-0002/20040406-0.txt Approved. Action: Martin to correct Daniel's address.
ACTION: Yves to publish the html of WD of CDL (dependent on previous action. (0309, 0316, 0323) - IN PROGRESS. Yves has sent a version to the chairs for their final approval. In progress. Will be done in two days. ACTION: SRT send email to public list reminding people how to handle comments and issues on the docs. (0309, 0316, 0323) - IN PROGRESS Done. ACTION: Greg to code up use case (from Requirements document) in CDL (0301, 0309, 0316, 0323) In progress ACTION: Code banana calculus examples in CDL (0316, 0323) In progress. Monica offered to help. Steve to coordinate with Monica between now and the next call ACTION: Martin to send out the next F2F Agenda In progress. ACTION: Martin to create the registration form Done ACTION: Steve and Nick made a list the resolutions and post in Bugzilla In progress ACTION: Martin to hold another issues triages In progress. Later this week will do probably thursday. ACTION: Steve and Nick to list the resolutions made at the face-to-face and the issues in Bugzilla that this version resolves (but may be none as the changes are mainly editorial in nature) In progress. ACTION: all to comment with a view to promoting this editor's draft to working draft. Done ACTION: Tony and others to look at the model overview and suggest what should be in the specification and what should be in the primer. In progress ACTION: Steve to raise moving the UML diagrams into the model overview section as an issue. Done. (Already marked as an issue). Next F2F in Sep/Oct. ACTION: Abbie, Greg and Monica will get back to the group.
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/edcopies/cdl/cdl.html
DA: Is it appropirate publish as "interim working draft".
Steve: Put in the last week. Is it acceptable as working draft of CDL spec..
DA, David, Monica: ok.
MM: Some kind of issues are in bugzilla. Some things are missing. As long as as the group acknolwedges..
Steve: People have raised the issues already. Not hearing any objection.
Martin: It is a working draft.
Yves: no need to have consensus. Signal to the outside world where we are rather than completeness.
DA: Of course with caveat it is not finished.. But still we should do it.
Motion passed. Seconded by DA.
Steve: Do you want to spend time talking about it?.. I was going to talk about editor's meeting.
Steve: What the editors are up to the meeting?
David: we met in the last week and planning to get together next week.
Steve: we are moving speedy.. What are we going to do in the con call is that we discuss the issues.
We need to filter the issues that substantial bearing on the CDL and those don't.
Without that work, it will be difficult to bring the issues to the table and discuss it.
DA: Try and pick the conceputal issues rather than editorial issues.. And go from there.
Martin: Why don't we go thru the issues..
Steve: I will tell my favorite..
Monica and Tony raised..We put the issue of having a language composed of three sub languages.
In the F2F we consolidated to two.
David: Disagree..
Martin: One being abstract and another being concrete. Too premature to divide the language that way.
Martin: Did not rule out the abstract.
David: Not sure about the WSDL issue.
DA: Trying to understand the objections of the approach.
Martin: People had objections to the abstract..
DA: Abstract is completely independent of webserivces, wsdl etc.
David: way of definging wsdl as abstract, we can live with abstract.
DA: I don't believe we can sure about the abstraction of CDL could be done thru WSDL.
David: Rosettanet whole set of choreographies.. using rnf etc.. Not using web services.. The way of doing this way Rosettanet will not be able to do this.
Steve: we are way what we are.. till we get further.
Martin: Many many chor defintions will exists no universal defintion of buyer
David: In rosettanet people are going to define the same service interface.
Martin: We went thru all these and trying to understand where are we.
Tony: This discussion shows we need levels and we have to define the levels. I was not aware of this.
David: If you want to reopen the decision that closed on F2F..?
Steve: We need concrete and new evidence to support.
Tony: David has been arguing to define the chor from bus perspective..I agreed with that. Martin is coming from interop perspective.. We need more information and not enough for interoperablity.
As a requirement how we achieve it .. We might have to work out..to the use of CDL.
Martin: We have exactly the same discussion. This is the web service chor working group. Argument was we can work with
the UML Sequence diagram.
David: Two ws defin that have different interfaces could use the same chor. Is that correct or not?
Steve: Decision has to get made in the group.. There are procedures thru which you can move on.
DA: Thinking about the reality of the situation. WSDL definitions that described in a way would not work.. It changes
always.. We have to be very careful not dependent on WSDL (interface.. on message sequence).
Martin: Does not explain much sense.
DA: WSDL Changes like after 5pm..Context specific..Trying to use WSDL for business process that something not designed to do.
Martin: It is not one to one mapping.. You cannot be sending some random messages. What chor is trying to bring the order
and sequence. If you don't know which one to be invoked.. it is a problem.
Martin: Chor lang is higher level of business process.
Steve: IF I wish to model the dependent of one end point with another end point?
If I describe CDL file.. Wish to add new participant, all the name mismatch and endpoint change.
Can I do that?
Nick: You can do that.. Do you want to do that?
DA: Can we do that? That is the question.
Steve: After 5 pm my defi of end point.. Some notion of time built into the choreography.
Nick: yes you can do that.
Steve: End point is the same as the other party.. Same no of function calls and parameters..
Nick: How do u define the equivalence.. Just the naming convention.
Nick: Doing with endpoint description.
Nick: If even you have two interfaces.. two method names..?
Steve: is it possible to do it in CDL? They do exactly samething.
Nick: WSDL template.. You should have..Otherwise you cannot compare.
Nick: It will be easy to add this.. Somebody can take some action and come up with concrete..and include
in the spec.
ACTION: Daniel to come up with the requirements in determinng the equivalence of WSDL files?
Come up with issues, requirements as well.
David: Talking about the cannoical chor..?
Nick: WSDL is the end point description. What equivalence is?
David: We will not be able to do automatically..
Martin: Don't Need that much of abstraction..This is WS WG.
Nick: I was heavily debating with three level or two or one..I see all the arguments.
Nick: If we can could compromise depending on the requirements.. strike the balance between the usablity, complexity..
David: Before it is too complicated and now it is too simplified.
Nick: If we can something concrete..
Martin: Here is the change in the language.. New evidence.. We can consider the new evidence.
David: That is the fair statement.
NEW ACTION: David and Steve going to coordinate on the abstract/concrete issues and bring new evidence based (or not as the case may be).
Tony: We discussed lot of times. Single way of doing it might complicate.. We may not need that way.
Different kind of descriptions are valid..Two sets of requirement (1) Design the business process capture in the CDL?
(2) Another is get in more details.. Base form of CDL could do that business process. Then have the another "legal"
package..
Steve: We will move off this topic..
Martin: We have working draft and if there are some changes.. post it and we can discuss.
Steve: talking about abstract chor about abstractly.
Nick: Something called interface, behavior..Interface is now optional on purpose..
Steve: Noted..
Steve: we are moving on from this topic.
OASIS WS-Reliability TC: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/5999/WS-Reliability-CD-0992.zip Steve; They have issued the document for review. XML Protocol is looking into it. Do we have any comments? DA: Find volunteers to do it. Any direct dependecy on it.? Monica: referring the document. Martin: The time is running out.. Steve: Please make any comment if you have one. Steve: Any other liaison activites that we have to be aware of it? Steve: Moving on to any other business? Steve: Met with Kevin with FIX protocol and working with IBM. He is not very happy with endpoint perspective. He has given some direction which to take and show some value.. We can have joint announcement. I can get more information, he set one day aside.. If we can show some value, clear business benefits..then it is better for us. if we can code FIX thru CDL , then we can show some value NEW ACTION: Steve to send the FIX protocol documents,links etc.
- Con call time DA: Meeting time is problem? Steve: Just make sure everybody from Europe participates. NEW Action: Martin to poll for timing. Leave the same, one hour, two hours earlier, don't care.
ACTION: Yves to publish the html of WD of CDL (dependent on previous action. (0309, 0316, 0323) - IN PROGRESS. Yves has sent a version to the chairs for their final approval. In progress. Will be done in two days. ACTION: SRT send email to public list reminding people how to handle comments and issues on the docs. (0309, 0316, 0323) - IN PROGRESS Done. ACTION: Greg to code up use case (from Requirements document) in CDL (0301, 0309, 0316, 0323) In progress ACTION: Code banana calculus examples in CDL (0316, 0323) In progress. Monica offered to help. Steve to coordinate with Monica between now and the next call ACTION: Martin to send out the next F2F Agenda In progress. ACTION: Steve and Nick made a list the resolutions and post in Bugzilla In progress ACTION: Martin to hold another issues triages In progress. Later this week will do probably thursday. ACTION: Steve and Nick to list the resolutions made at the face-to-face and the issues in Bugzilla that this version resolves (but may be none as the changes are mainly editorial in nature) In progress. ACTION: Tony and others to look at the model overview and suggest what should be in the specification and what should be in the primer. In progress ACTION: Abbie, Greg and Monica will get back to the group. ACTION: David and Steve going to coordinate on the abstract/concrete issues and bring new evidence based (or not as the case may be). ACTION: Steve to send the FIX protocol documents,links etc. ACTION: Martin to poll for timing. Leave the same, one hour, two hours earlier, don't care.