Minutes 29 June 04 Con Call
IRC Log is at:
David Burdett is Scribe for meeting.
Minutes of previous meeting http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2004Jun/att-0015/Minutes06152004_0.txt
Steve recalls that exception handling issues were discussed in last meeting but can't find a record in the minutes.
Steve proposes to adopt minutes but remove his notes.
Minutes passed subject to SRT taking out his notes
Action 1. (Tony, 0525, 0601, 0615, 0629)to look at element choreography notation to see how we may
be able to roll up transaction features into it. IN progress.
Action 2. (SRT, 0525, 0601, 0615, 0629): Take the TWIST example we're working on, add part of the flow
what can go wrong, see what happens when things go wrong. We can see in front of us the choreography
being executed, what we do today with current language, what we can do with transaction. Steve is
starting to add exception handling. Nick and Steve have corresponded on "perform" which revealed some
errors in the specification to be corrected.
No progress. Steve has been busy
Action item 3. (CHAIRS, 0525, 0601, 0615, 0629) Chairs to ensure that the main group approve closure of issues recommended for closure by the issues triage sub-group. Chairs to check minutes to see if already done.
See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor-comments/2004Jun/ for outstanding issues.
Action item 4. Martin to keep this list up to date on his spreadsheet.
sheet is currently up to date .
Action item 5. (MARTIN/YVES, 0615, 0629) Martin/Yves put link on admin page for current spreadsheet Yves working with Martin. In progress
Action item 6. (STEVE, 0615, 0629) to invite Matthew Arrott, Bill Specht, Gary Brown (Enigmatec) and Kevin Houston to the next WS-Choreography face-to-face meeting.
Mathew Arnott, etc. have been invited to F2F. No replies received as yet. Steve will chase and keep people informed on progress.
Action item 7. (CHAIRS, 0615) to put together a proposal and attempt to gain consensus on priorities at
next conference call.
Steve, action probably no longer valid. Martin, thought that we would not prioiritize yet. Steve, so really it
prioritizatioin by action.
Action item 8. (CHAIRS, 0615) Chairs will take first stab at agenda (to accommodate Kavantzas going on vacation).
Completed - F2F agenda is done although further revisions may be occur.
Issues Category Run Through
Nick. Question is how many changes can editor do without review by the rest of the team.
Topic was discussed briefly, but will review topic later in the call.
Concerete Bindaings and QoS
No proposals as yet .
Steve. There is a message content type in the interact and it is there by design.
Tony, you need it so that you can understand which message you are sending.
Discussion on how CDL message content type relates to WSDL content type.
One reason is because you can't exchange channel information without the idea of a message having a
It is possible that the CDL Message Type is different from the WSDL message type when they need to be
the same. However any discrepancies should be handled by the tools.
Why specify a message type in the interaction? Because you cannot do channel passing without them and
achieve the goals set by the WG.
Why not in the associated WSDL? Because they do not model channel.
Could they be different? With the exception of the channel types no they cannot. 1
How do you guaranty that they cannot be different if specified in two different places? By design they
cannot differ except with the channel types.
SRT: I propose that we mark Issue 666 as RESOLVED WONTFIX
Issue 666 marked as resolved, no changes to CDL required.
No issues outstanding.
Exceptions and faults
SRT: Issue 490. We need to have a mechanism for specifying faults in general.
This will fix or resolve issue 490. So we need to come back to it.
The fix above may also include a range of predefined faults/exceptions and the like.
Issue 490. Discussed. We need to have a mechanism for defining faults and variables. Which may also
use a range of predefined faults and exceptions
Leave this one with Nick K as he is looking into interacts. Should this be assigned to Nick as part of this?
Agreed Nick to come up with a proposal. Issue is assigned to Nick. Still open.
Issue 494. Nick. An exception block is no different from any other block from the perspective or raising errors.
Nick & David to review the issue, some clarification may be needed.
Issue 495. If an exception occurs, then it goes to the parent. If the parent has no exception then it stops.
Issues 494 and 495. When the exception/error is thrown in a choreo then the parent catches the exception. This resolves 494 and 495 but raises an issue about unhandled exceptions.
Issue 495. Editors review handling of exceptions for which exception block.
Issue 497. How do you indicate that choreography completes with an error if a choreography is perfomed.
Leave Issue 497 as topic for further discussion.
F2F agenda at:
SRT: Any issues to be raised now ... No.
Monica: I do have an update as I have been working on import issues.
Currently we only allow import at the package level. There has been an issue raising this top-level constraint on the assumption that the import is the choreography definition itself. If we allow interaction level import, we may raise other challenges related to errors, dependencies, etc.
Discuss on email or on next weeks call
Nick. Re templating - he'll be on vacation - suggested that Nick posts comments to the list.
Revisions of the document
Nick. Suggested that changes are recorded in the draft so that group can review.
Martin. For agreed proposals, either change this to that, or for issues without resolution follow the directions from the group.
WE HAVE TO GET TO LAST CALL BY DEC
Martin. The CDL group has to get to last call by December.
Editorial clarifications don't have to be there but 95%+ of the language must be there.
Martin. As we get closer to the last call it is more important that people have their say.
To do this, we have to clean up the list with people who are no longer in "good standing".
The process is: a) contact AC rep and say that they will be in bad standing, please show up.
This does not stop people from joining/rejoining.
No new actions points this meeting