Minutes WS Choreography WG conference call 31 May 2005
See also IRC log:
http://www.w3.org/2005/05/31-ws-chor-irc
Agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005May/att-0076/Agenda-05312005-0.txt
1. Role Call: Steve, Charlton, Nick, Abbie, Yves, Gary, Tony
2. Scribe: Steve
3. Agenda Changes:
Tony: Yves sent in proposal for correctness and if we have time could be dealt with tonight.
SRT: Adds to agenda for today
SRT: Issue 1166 - concurrent performs remains outstanding
Gary: Ordering of activities (based on gary response to Tony's email)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005May/0075.html
4. Approve minutes 24th May 2005:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2005May/att-0021/minutes_20050524_-_0.txt
NO OBJECTIONS - MINUTES PASSED
5. Action Item Review:
1. ACTION: Martin to do UML diagram from scratch for CDL
NO PROGRESS - NO CHANGE
2. ACTION: chairs to respond to issue raiser for closed issues
STANDING ITEM
3. ACTION: Yves to define what is meant by correctness
DONE (Correctness proposal herin)
4. ACTION: chairs to bring Tony's conformance proposal to the Choreo WG for discussion
DONE
5. ACTION: Steve and/or Martin to generate a list of the issue numbers that the editing team should be working on as a spot check.
NO PROGRESS
6. ACTION: Greg to make sure all editorial issue that are in the current ed draft be marked resolved fixed in bugzilla
DONE
7. ACTION: Chairs discuss and provide a recommendation.
NO IDEA WHAT IT MEANS - SRT TO CLARIFY
8. ACTION: Gary/Charlton to do example
DONE
9. ACTION: Nick to do example
DONE
10. ACTION: Nick to ask again on the public list to get a clear answer that enables implementors to deal with the issue. It needs to be a yes or no on the legality. So the semantics of the attributes need to be totally clear and unambiguous.
DONE
11. ACTION: SRT to email Nigel W on use of group for fwd marketing.
DONE
6. Proposals:
ISSUE 1008 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1008
SUMMARY: FAULT HANDLING
URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor-comments/2005Jan/0012.html
Lastest thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005May/0058.html
PROPOSAL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005May/0049.html
Gary: Suggests that we postpone this one until the F2F
Yves think that the f2f will give more bandwidth for discussion as well
Charlton: Seconded
Objections: None
MOTION PASSED
NEW ACTION: SRT To add 1008 to agenda for F2F
ISSUE 1001 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1001
SUMMARY: CORRELATION OF CHANNEL INSTANCES
URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor-comments/2005Jan/0006.html
PROPOSAL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005May/0016.html
Steve: Are there any points clarification
Nick: We can link it more accurately to the WS-CDL specification and that is just wordsmithing.
Nick: The question I have is procedural.
Nick: What I wanted to do is to enhance the proposal to cover these wider issues. If we need to raise another issue then that is okay or we can use the existing proposal and add an amendment to the proposal as is.
Yves: Everything is open to reach consensus. If it is closed we can reopen it and make an amendment if we need to do so.
Nick: Asks gary what is his preference.
Gary: Would rather it is dealt with as an amendment having adopted this proposal as and when agreed. One of the dangers is merging might detract from the issue at hand.
Nick: Is worried that we might make it more tricky to get such an amendment in. Being able to handle both problems would be preferable than dealing with one.
Gary: Suggests that we adopt the proposal and then Nick raises an amendment to the spec (with the proposal having been adopted).
Nick: This is really important and so I would prefer to deal with this at the F2F. Not sure if I fully understand this.
Nick: There are many ways of resolving the issue at hand. The proposal is one way of doing it.
Nick: The issue text itself is loose enough to be able to incorporate a possible amendment.
Chalton: What is driving Nick's amendments?
Steve: I am not necessarily prepared to accept amendments but I am not ruling it out right now.
Nick: My small amendment at the Boston F2F was all about what is a choreo session. The big choreo instance and the conversation within a choreo.
Nick: Explains the issue about choreo id (the big one) and conversation (group of interacts). And so maybe this can be solved by both proposals.
Gary: The choreo session (the big one) is inferred rather than made explicit.
Nick: What happens if you correlate two sets of interactions? Is this one or two choreos?
Gary: One choreo
Nick: How do you relate them together?
Gary: This is what the proposal really done but it is implicit rather than explicit
Nick: The two conversations need to be related or associated to something?
Gary: They relate to each other not to some higher thing
Nick: Look at my example
Gary: Our proposal combines both sorts of identities
Nick: Can I point to the big thingy (the choreo instance)
Gary: No that you cannot do. The proposal says how the channels are related?
Nick: How does it work for this example?
Nick: Point to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005Apr/0029.html
Gary: The email is not easy to understand. So I cannot do this easily. You can set up associations and derive keys that model the relationships that encode identity
Nick: Asks if Gary can sketch a soln to the example
Nick: There is a sequenec and a parallel.
Nick: There are only two channel instances used: ch4CBVar_chT4 and ch4CBVar_chT3
Gary: In the proposal there is one concept and not two and the same can be achieved.
Nick: Are u askings if there is a good reason for having these two types of identity concepts? Can we do everything that we need to do (e.g. Finalizations)
Gary: Yes u can do finalizations
Gary: What is the problems with finalizations?
Nick: The problems is that during finalization how could you identify the appropriate instance of the choreo
Gary: The proposal allows u to have as many keys as you want/need and you make relationships between them.
Nick: If some of these only have SupplierId is this used as the primary key?
Gary: You can have alternate keys.
Nick: So what you are saying is you can it?
Gary: yes but without being as explicit
Gary: Asks the group is adopt the proposal at hand.
Nick: I object on the grounds that the proposal does not deal with the definition of "choreography session" and so it needs further text to define this concept.
Gary: Would you agree that this could be a minor amendment that is editorial?
Nick: No
Gary: But I thought you said it was just a definitional issue.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005May/0016.html
Steve: Does any one else object to the proposal
Ccharlton: I agree with Gary's proposal
Charlton +1 Gary
Abbie +1
Nick point to latest editors draft to see how to incorporate proposal
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/edcopies/cdl/cdl.html
Nick refers to 2.4.7 Choreography Life-line of editors draft above
Nick: It may be that the Life-line is a session. So we could maybe rename the section to support such a change. Would this work?
Tony/Nick: In section 2.4.7 from 2nd para downwards replacing choreo with choreo session or instance.
Gary/Nick: Proposed AMENDMENT to Gary's proposal as follows:
"session" is replaced by "instance"
AMENDED PROPOSAL (proposed change to Gary's) ADOPTED
NEW ACTION: Gary to modify proposal for 1001 changing session for instance
NEW ACTION: Editors will take modified proposal for 1001 and wrap up into 2.4.7 based on amendment
ISSUE 1003 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1003
SUMMARY: RELINGUISHING CONTROL OF PASSED OUTPUT CHANNELS
URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor-comments/2005Jan/0007.html
PROPOSAL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005May/0005.html
Latest thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005May/0042.html
Nick: This is now looking good but needs further text from gary to clarify the rules and maybe a small example.
NEW ACTION: Gary to craft text for 1003
NEW ACTION: SRT to add 1003 to agenda for F2F
ISSUE Unknown
SUMMARY: Correctness proposal
PROPOSAL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005May/0077.html
Seconded by Tony
SRT: Any objections
No objections
PROPOSAL (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005May/0077.html) PASSED
ISSUE 1039 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1039
SUMMARY: Section 8 (Conformance) is incomplete
LATEST PROPOSAL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005May/att-0056/2005-05-23_Contribution_to_WS-Chor_on_Conformance_section.doc
Seconded by Charlton
Objection: Yves - not enough time to read pls take to F2F
NEW ACTION: SRT to include 1039 in F2F Agenda
7. Issues requiring clarification
8. F2F Agenda and planning
9. AOB
There being no further business the meeting adjourned.
SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING ACTION ITEMS
1. ACTION: Martin to do UML diagram from scratch for CDL
NO PROGRESS - NO CHANGE
2. ACTION: chairs to respond to issue raiser for closed issues
STANDING ITEM
3. ACTION: Steve and/or Martin to generate a list of the issue numbers that the editing team should be working on as a spot check.
NO PROGRESS
4. ACTION: Chairs discuss and provide a recommendation.
NO IDEA WHAT IT MEANS - SRT TO CLARIFY
5. NEW ACTION: SRT To add 1008 to agenda for F2F
6. NEW ACTION: Gary to modify proposal for 1001 changing session for instance
7. NEW ACTION: Editors will take modified proposal for 1001 and wrap up into 2.4.7 based on amendment
8. NEW ACTION: Gary to craft text for 1003
9. NEW ACTION: SRT to add 1003 to agenda for F2F
10. NEW ACTION: SRT to include 1039 in F2F Agenda