Minutes 6 July 04 Con Call
W3C WS Choreography WG conference call
6th July 2004, 3PM EST, 12AM PST, 19h UTC, 20h BST, 21h MET,
1. Role Call
Martin Chapman, Steve Ross-Talbot, Yves Lafon, Carine, Greg Ritzinger, Carine XYZ, Ravi Byakod,
Jeff Mischkinsky, Tony Fletcher, David Burdett, Monica Martin Abbie Barbir, Nick Kavantzas
2. Confirm scribe
Scribe was Monica Martin - thanks
3. Approve minutes
Approve minutes 29 June 2004: Approved.
4. Action item review (from the previous meeting)
Action 1. (Tony, 0525, 0601, 0615, 0629, 0706)to look at element choreography notation to see how we may
be able to roll up transaction features into it.
Action 2. (SRT, 0525, 0601, 0615, 0629, 0706): 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.
PENDING COMMENTS FROM MA and BS (Matthew Arnott and Bill Specht)
Action item 3. (MARTIN/YVES, 0615, 0629, 0706) Martin/Yves put link on admin page for current spreadsheet. Yves has file now.
5. Issue Category Run Thru
*** i. language levels and layers ***
Template proposal (Burdett): Looking for consensus on approach.
SRT: Question - Need clarification on #2 requirement '4. etc.' What is that?
Burdett: Don't know yet. Trying to restrict what can be templated; don't know exact list yet.
SRT: References within references; may have comments later.
is the latest one
mm1: Should we defer approval if version confused?
Chapman: Use of chor template, would like better connection of the package and template.
A package can define a template or be based on a template. This needs to be more explicit in the document.
Burdett: Could add attributes to package related to the template.
One problem exists: A new package could be based on more than 1 template.
If attributes on package, restricts to reference to one template only.
SRT: In version 2, references have been removed. My question is withdrawn.
mm1: How does this relate to import; I've asked the question about the use of substitution in the import issues too.
Burdett: Do we still need import?
You can substitute names, fragments, etc.
Chapman: Don't see any similarity between import or substitution.
SRT: +1 to MC
SRT: With substitution, you are not changing semantics. Import may.
Burdett: A package could be a string of imports that results in a valid CDL definition.
SRT: Template allows you to change the M&M color,not to a twinkie.
Make sure proposal is explicitly clear about template use.
SRT and MC: Wish to see v3.0 on template proposal.
Burdett: Do I add where substitution is allowed?
SRT: Yes, with constraints.
Burdett: Put forward places where substitution can be used.
List candidate list of topics for F2F.
*** a. editorial ***
Chapman: Editorial question, could we get a draft for F2F?
Burdett: Show two documents: 1 with changes shown, the other not.
*** b. concrete bindings and qos (Charlton) ***
SRT: Concrete bindings and QoS; Charleton not present.
Burdett: Have to have a definition that describes the endpoint for concrete bindings. Use templating.
SRT: Need to put discussion on public list.
Chapman: Need to discuss proposals primarily.
*** c. Import (Monica) ***
Mischkinsky: Import is purely syntactic. There is nothing different with a text editor vs. import.
mm1: If we take only a syntactic approach, the TC can decide.
SRT: Import process can't have semantics applied to it; the results can have.
Need to separate concepts of import from substitution and their relationship.
Go back and look at template proposal to resolve import issues or recast them.
mm1: Will use v2.0 template proposal to realign import proposal.
SRT: Issue 469, Name clashes raise processing error.
SRT: Do we wish to put constraints on import at all?
Import can occur everywhere.
SRT: We could be flexible or apply constraints to where it could appear.
mm1: Design guide could give developers guidance rather than constraints.
Fletcher: Are you differentiating from include and import
SRT: Like /include in C++.
Fletcher: May wish to use xinclude instead.
May wish to allow an include (syntactically correct choreography).
SRT: If this is a preprocessing mechanism only, the resolution could be simple.
Fletcher: The include wouldn't be needed?
Lafon: Apply processing constraints like xinclude.
SRT: Will provide proposal on include only then discuss other issues raised in Monica's document.
SRT says he will do a proposal using xinclude for next week (not an action just a reminder)
*** d. Interacts ***
*** e. Variables ***
*** f. Exceptions and faults (Greg) ***
*** j. Misc: teminology, naming/identification, precision/formalism. ***
mm1: Note, there has been much traffic on public list.
6. Examples sub group report (next meeting?)
Krishnan regrets; group has not met.
7. F2F Agenda
No comments right now.
SRT-Contact AC on members in bad standing before next meeting.
Fletcher: F2F agenda, Choreology will rewrite transaction proposal for F2F. Furniss will attend to brief if
possible. Use coordination and state alignment discussion slot.
SRT: Two-four proposals may be submitted by next week.