Minutes WS Choreography WG conference call 2nd November 2004
1. Roll Call
Yves Lafon, Carine Bournez, Charlton Barreto, Peter Furniss, Tony Fletcher, Monica Martin,
Nick Kavantzas, Greg Ritzinger, Abbie Barbir, Gary Brown
2. Confirm scribe
Greg Ritzinger was appointed scribe for the call
The following is a recent list of scribes:
Gary Brow, Charlton Barreto, Anthony Fletcher, Yves Lafon, Jeff Mischkinsky, Nick Kavantzas, Abbie XYZ, Steve Ross-Talbot,
David Burdett, Monica Martin, Jeff Mischkinsky, Charlton Barreto, Anthony Fletcher, Greg Ritzinger, Nickolas Kavantzas,
3. Approve minutes
Minutes 26th oct: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2004Nov/att-0000/MeetingMinutes20041026-0.txt
Minutes of october 26 are passed
4. Action item review
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.
IN PROGRESS. Choreology working on it too.
ACTION 2: Chairs to sort out examples work. NO PROGRESS
ACTION 3: on Martin to propose text on clocks (Issue 885).
Proposal by end of week.
ACTION 4: on the chairs to discuss part 2 of the specification. CLOSED
Planning for part 2 after last call.
ACTION 5: Bob/Choreology to come back with a definitive proposal with editing instructions on PROPOSAL ONE.
ACTION 7: Martin to produce UML model of WS-CDL for the editors to include in spec.
ACTION 8: Steve to tidy up proposal on locally defined variable (issue 691) and send (including Schema changes) to the editors.
ACTION 9: Gary to see if he can put together a modified Nick proposal to include the relaxed fault handling. DONE
ACTION 10: Nick's proposal to be on the agenda next week. DONE
On this agenda
ACTION 11: Editor's look at clarification items in the agenda in preparation for next week's call. DONE
Issue resolution and proposals
Gary - WSDL MEP proposal hasn't been resolved.
SRT - We need to resolve as best we can.
WSDL MEP proposal is to be added to tonights agenda as item #10
WSDL MEP proposal is:
My proposal for 687.3 was a request for two examples (already provided). Can this be handled under 6. Clarifications?
SRT - discussion order will be: i, ii, iv, vi, vii, viii, ix
(i) Fault Handling
Proposed modification to
proposal to remove " and causes an Exception to occur at a party when populated..."
Gary - subheading "Variable Definition" contained a inconsistent usage. Proposed text in IRC
Nick agrees with Gary
Monica - question regarding implicit choice
Monica - suggested including operational semantics
Nick - please propose the text
Monica - question regarding record elements, non-observable predicate conditions, needs explanation
Fault proposal as modified by Gary is accepted w/out objections:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2004Oct/0026.html with " and causes an Exception to occur at a party when populated..." removed.
(ii) Choreography lifeline section changes
Nick - was comfortable w/ text when originally sent out but realized that it needs to be clrified based on responses from group and peers.
Nick - asks for time to rework the proposal.
SRT - agreed
(iv) Coordinated Choreographies Proposal 1 - coordination attribute
Nick - high level comment: this is a big proposal that needs discussion. Asks what is the process for going forward with the proposal.
Martin - could have informal call, or defer to next week with email discussion
Monica - could we have infomal call and make decisions at F2F?
Gary - takes a long time to digest the Bob's proposals
SRT - if there is no visible discusion between now and F2F, assume everything is OK?
ACTION: Yves to book a bridge for monday 11am PST (for 1.5h)
Informal meeting to discuss proposals 1, 3, 4, and 6 will be held Monday (08/11/2004) 11:00am PST, 7pm GMT
(iii) Removing the attribute root on a Choreography definition
SRT - Is there a good reason to have the root attribute besides what the proposal discusses?
Nick - would like to know how proposal 'works'.
Peter - what is the purpose of the root attribute?
Tony - do not see any real reason to have the attribute.
Martin - ahy do you need an attribute instead of lexical ordering?
Nick - idea is that you want to have one chor with special meaning.
SRT - current mechanism does not blend well w/ XInclude.
Martin - have root declaration at package level
Martin - are there any other special rules in effect as a root chor?
Peter - root chor cannot be parameterized.
Peter - cannot be reused
Martin - agrees w/ Nick that lexical ordering 'doesn't buy us anything'
Monica - if we leave root attr in, how do we resolve Tony's orig question re XInclude
Martin - parser should flag an error
SRT - one of 2 approaches; lexical ordering or marked root chor.
Charlton - i don't see what marked root chor gains over lexical ordering
Nick - spec says that a package MAY have a root chor
Martin - that's like saying a program may have a main(), i.e. can't run it.
Martin - since we have no concept of extension, ... a package w/out a root chor is meaningless(?)
Martin -if after doing all the xincludes and completing the parse tree there is still no root it is a meaningless choreography therefore a package must have a root choreo until we get an extends/inhertiance construct
Charlton - why can't the top level chor be auto-recognised as root? without an attribute?
Greg - that's lex order isn't it?
Charlton - correct
Greg - it's simpler
Charlton - to implement? yes - for recognition of a root chor, but not for addressing all the consequential rules that need to be defined
Greg - which are?
Charlton - how to address a root chor which happens to include another root chor
essentially: how to address a root chor which itself is included
how to address a root chor with circular references
SRT - would like to resolution by next call.
No new actions.