Minutes 7 September 2004 Con Call
1 Role Call:
Tony Fletcher (Choreology), David Burdett (Commerce One), Steve Ross-Talbot (Co-Chair - Enigmatec), Gary Brown (Enigmatec), Abbie Barbir (Nortel), Greg Ritzinger (Novell), Martin Chapman (Co-Chair - Oracle), Nickolas Kavantzas (Oracle), Monica Martin (Sun), Carine Carine Bournez & Yves Lafon (W3C staff)
Regrets: Charlton Barreto (webMethods),
2. Confirm Scribe
Tony agreed to scribe.
3. Approve minutes
The minutes for the 31st August, 2004 were approved.
4. Action Item Review
ACTION: SRT raise an issue on type system and warnings (SRT, 0831)
DONE, Steve has raised an issue on race conditions (logged today) refer to bug 872.
ACTION: 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. (SRT, 0525, 0601, 0615, 0629, 0706, 0713, 0806, 0831).
IN PROGRESS: Steve has sent out e-mails but has still not heard back from Bill or Matthew
NEW ACTION: Steve to call Bill (Specht) and / or Matthew (Arrott).
ACTION: Chapman log UML model as an issue. (MC, 0831)
DONE: Martin reported that UML model has been logged as an issue (one filed by Tony some time ago, plus a new one for Martin to update the UML overview model).
ACTION: SRT to raise MEP extensibility problem with the WS-CG (SRT, 0806, 0831)
DONE: Steve has raised with the coordination group (and found common consent on the coordination group call). Steve noted that the coordination group are holding a face-to-face meeting next week after our call and would appreciate input.
ACTION: Ritzinger to log as issue the need for need InputChannelVariable, OutputChannelVariable, FaultChannelVariable.(GR, 0831)
DONE by Greg.
ACTION: Ritzinger to log as an issue proposals for requirements for rules governing endpoint generation both in the absence and presence of WSDL. (GR, 0831)
DONE by Greg.
ACTION: We agree that we should separate repetitions into a separate construct. We need to sent this back to the authors and explore as a group how to approach this, including expressing conditions on both variables and interactions. (GB, 0806, 0831)
DONE: issue raised against repetition. Refer to bug 869.
ACTION: Charlton to look at impact on our language of supporting BP (WS-I Basic Profile) 1.1, SSBP (Simple SOAP Binding Profile) 1.0, AP (Attachments Profile) 1.0 (CB, 0806, 0831)
IN PROGRESS: marked as in progress as Charlton was not on the call.
ACTION: Open new issue to investigate the solicit-response and notification in WSDL 1.0 and WDSL 2.0 (OPEN, 0806, 0831)
DONE: logged as issue 855.
ACTION: Editors to produce and publicize the list of changes made in the latest ED draft. (ED, 0806, 0831)
IN PROGRESS: Editors had a meeting today worked on import - publicize the list of changes is to be done still.
ACTION: Editors to evolve it in the next few weeks with goal of enabling the WG to adopt a new WD at the next formal meeting 31 Aug. (ED, 0806, 0831)
IN PROGRESS. Nick said he hoped a draft would be available sometime next week for potential adoption as a new Working Draft at the Face to Face.
ACTION: Review and produce LC comments on the WSDL 2.0 docs by the end of the next f2f. Need someone to coordinate the activity. Chairs to put on agenda for 31 Aug. (CHAIRS, 0806, 0831)
IN PROGRESS: Martin is working on it. Martin emphasised that we can all chip in with comments.
NEW ACTION: Chairs to contact Charlton and to put on the agenda for next week.
5. Proposals
Composition
Composition/Perform proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2004Jul/att-0070/Composition.pdf
Steve introduced this topic by referring the meeting to the submission that he and Gary had made to the recent face-to-face - see composition.pdf - and issue 871.
The current perform mechanism does not support complex choreographies or recursive ones. Currently perform has an entry point and an end point between which it acts as an atomic unit. Steve asserted that complex choreographies will need to have multiple points of contact.
Nick disputed to this was currently the case. He said no, the result of a perform is just to in line the performed choreography. So any problems are not actually with perform but with the way that choreographies themselves operate.
Steve said there was a need to bind some variables into a performed choreography - it may do all sorts of things. At some point it may need to pass information to that which called it, continue, pass more information back to the caller, continue, pass more information back and complete (for example).
Nick said that one does not have to use perform - can already have one choreography inside another one which can do the same - can have Interacts in parallel.
Nick said that you can share information via free variables and so can already do this. Can have variables that are aliases to other variables.
Steve and Abbie thought that there could then be race conditions in updating such variables. Nick replied again that this was not peculiar to perform. Happens when you have parallel Interacts - can use isolation level on variables to control this updating issue. Nick said that changes have been made to the specification since the face-to-face that hopefully clarifies these matters.
Nick agreed that one issue is: can a choreography within a choreography have a different isolation level from that of its enclosing choreography. Monica said she thought this had been raised back at the face-to-face in France with regard to the nesting of choreographies.
NEW ACTION: Raise the allowed isolation level of nested choreographies as an issue
Martin said that currently the perform description does read like a function call, whereas Nick seemed to be saying it was more like an include.
Martin said that there may be a need to assign new values to the roles in the included choreography - not just variables.
Gary said his problem was that if you take two choreographies written by different groups then need to make sure their behaviours in terms of interactions are correct. This could be difficult if variables are involved in data sharing.
Nick said if need to remember that something has happened, values, etc then you do have this problem and do need variables.
Gary said that he has a problem with the variables being a contract between choreographies.
Steve is saying a choreography a needs to interact with the choreography that is doing the performing.
Tony pointed out that currently interactions are in terms of message passing between roles (only). Need different paradigm for passing information between choreographies? (Such as variable sharing between roles in the same participant).
Consider the example in the composition.pdf document - Gary and Steve would like to know how this would be handled in current CDL. Gary said he would split out the three individual choreographies to highlight the touch points for next week.
NEW ACTION: Gary to split out the three individual choreographies in his composition.pdf document to highlight the touch points for next week.
6. Issues Triage
Martin said that there was an issues meeting on 24th August 2004 as Tony had reminded him. Charlton has sent in the notes for that meeting today. Martin recommends we adopt the recommendations in those notes - no one had any objections and so they were accepted.
At this point Martin queried Bugzilla for new issues and found the following:
623 It says it needs more discussion in the group so it was agreed to accept it as a bug, as Greg and the other editors think that is more than an editorial.
678 This one was about the mention of UDDI. Nick pointed out that it was mentioned in the Introduction section as part of the general survey of web service technologies. Monica's point is that UDDI is no longer seen as integral part of Web Services. It now more a particular specification for a registry, and therefore we should either mention other such specifications such as the OASIS Registry / Repository standards, or talk very generally about the registry function.
NEW ACTION: Monica to provide exact proposed text to replace the mention of UDDI.
683 Again the editors have bounced this issue back as not editorial and have requested a proposal.
Martin expressed concern that the process did not seem to working if the editors were passing items back that had been passed to them. Nick asked for clarification of the problem cited in 683 and then the editors may be able to fix correctly. David and Nick emphasised that they were in fact fixing most of the editorial issues that have been passed to the editing team.
7. AOB
TF mentioned that he had received a mail from the Mayilraj saying that he (Mayilraj) understood that we had a joint action to produce an outline of the primer and did TF have any ideas. TF reported that he had now replied to Mayilraj with a proposed draft outline of the section headings for the primer. Martin emphasised the main specification should be our prime focus at present. Tony agreed and assured Martin that his work on the primer would not take any resource away from the specification. The primer could act as useful dumping ground for material considered more appropriate to a primer than the specification.
Martin also emphasised the need to spend more quality time on the issues next week. Martin will send out information and a call for participation in another issues triage meeting this Thursday (9th September, 2004).
There being no other business and the meeting being out of time the meeting was closed.
OUTSTANDING ACTION SUMMARY
ACTION 1: 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. (SRT, 0525, 0601, 0615, 0629, 0706, 0713, 0806, 0831).
IN PROGRESS: Steve has sent out e-mails but has still not heard back from Bill or Matthew
ACTION 2: Steve to call Bill (Specht) and / or Matthew (Arrott).
ACTION 3: Charlton to look at impact on our language of supporting BP (WS-I Basic Profile) 1.1, SSBP (Simple SOAP Binding Profile) 1.0, AP (Attachments Profile) 1.0 (CB, 0806, 0831)
IN PROGRESS: marked as in progress as Charlton was not on the call.
ACTION 4: Editors to produce and publicize the list of changes made in the latest ED draft. (ED, 0806, 0831)
IN PROGRESS: Editors had a meeting today worked on import - publicize the list of changes is to be done still.
ACTION 5: Editors to evolve it in the next few weeks with goal of enabling the WG to adopt a new WD at the next formal meeting 31 Aug. (ED, 0806, 0831)
IN PROGRESS. Nick said he hoped a draft would be available sometime next week for potential adoption as a new Working Draft at the Face to Face.
ACTION 6: Review and produce LC comments on the WSDL 2.0 docs by the end of the next f2f. Need someone to coordinate the activity. Chairs to put on agenda for 31 Aug. (CHAIRS, 0806, 0831)
IN PROGRESS: Martin is working on it. Martin emphasised that we can all chip in with comments.New Action: chairs to contact Charlton and to put on the agenda for next week.
ACTION 7: Chairs to contact Charlton and to put on the agenda for next week.
ACTION 8: Gary to split out the three individual choreographies in his composition.pdf document to highlight the touch points for next week.
ACTION 9: Monica to provide exact proposed text to replace the mention of UDDI.
ACTION 10: Raise the allowed isolation level of nested choreographies as an issue