Minutes WS Choreography WG conference call 1 November 2005

IRC: 			http://www.w3.org/2005/11/01-ws-chor-irc
Agenda:			http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005Oct/att-0006/Agenda20051101-0.txt
Current Snapshot: 	http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/5/10/snapshotCR.html

1. Role Call
------------
	SRT, Martin Chapman, Yves, Monica, Gary, Charlton, Abbie

Apologies:

2. Confirm scribe
-----------------
	Charlton

3. Agenda Changes
-----------------

4. Minutes of last meeting
---------------------------
	18th October 2005
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2005Oct/att-0003/minutes-20051018-0.txt
	Minutes APPROVED

	25th October 2005
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2005Oct/att-0005/minutes-20051025-0.txt		
	Minutes APPROVED

5. Action item review
---------------------
	1. ACTION: SRT to get an IP declaration from choreologies Alastair Green [1]
	DONE
	2. ACTION: SRT to add Examples to the F2F agenda
	DONE
	3. ACTION: Martin to sort out venue and hotels with Oracle 
	DONE
	NEW ACTION: SRT to sort out hotels for the Dec F2F



6. Candidate Recommendation
----------------------------
		1. REQUEST: Patent declarations from Nortel and Choreology.
		2. PROPOSAL: Change namespace to shorter version
		3. PROPOSAL: To revisit exit criteria with respect to having two implementations showing interoperablity
		NOTE:
			Meaning that the output from a Pi4Tech implementation would need to be consumed by another implementation
			For example an implementation might take a cdl defn and generate code in some form to show it works.
			What constitutes a code generator asks?
			What is an implementation?
	
	Yves: proposed namespace change: /2005/cdl
	SRT still working on acquiring the patent decls fron Nortel and Choreology
	SRT proposed to change the namespace to a shorter version as per above (/2005/cdl)
	Yves: We can also use /2005/10/cdl
	SRT: Should we make decision on the namespace now?
	Gary: To clarify, it is: http://www.w3.org/2005/cdl
	Yves: In the past we've used YYYY/MM/...
	Yves: Given the stability and the chances it will change in the future, we should use the shorter namespace
	Martin: We should keep the month in there
	SRT: Any objections using /2005/10/cdl?
	Yves: No chance we'll have released to CR before the end of the year
	Martin: I think it is bad practice to exclude the month
	Yves: HTML is doing the same
	Martin: May not be an issue for this spec to CR, but what about updates?
	Martin: Let's make a decision now
	SRT: I'm happy to change it
	Charlton: I'm good with changing it
	Martin: What are we changing it to?
	SRT: /2005/10/cdl 
	ADOPTED AS NEW NAMESPACE FOR WS-CDL WITH NO OBJECTIONS
	NEW ACTION: Yves to change the namespace to /2005/10/cdl
	
	Next item: To revisit exit criteria with respect to having two implementations showing interoperablity
	SRT: Issue surrounds, "What is an implementation?"
	Yves: Implementation would transform CDL to another [exe] format - e.g. generate WSDL file and code
	SRT: I'll look at exit criteria to determine whether this requires any text changes
	IT SAYS:
	The specific entrance criteria to the Proposed Recommendation phase shall be as follows:
	There MUST be examples that exhibit all of the key features of WS-CDL such that the examples:
	Can demonstrate that they are valid WS-CDL according to the specification.
	Involve more than one role.
	End points created from the examples run in at least two different platforms.
	The end points created can be shown to interoperate correctly according to the WS-CDL description.
	Where "valid WS-CDL" means that it conforms to the specification both in terms of the schema and the operational semantics of WS-CDL. Where "end point" means a web service.
	Where "platform" means a software stack capable of supporting the execution of a web service.
	Where "interoperate" means two web services playing at least two distinct roles.
	Interoperability concerns such as alignment protocol, coordination protocol and adressing are implementation details.
	
	SRT: Issue for me is what consititutes an implementation
	Charlton: Would Yves' definition suffice?
	Martin: End points have been generated from two different implementations.
	Martin: where "implementations" mean tools that take WS-CDL and produce end-point(s)
	SRT: Not sure Yves works because WS-CDL is not an executable language so what does the xform do that can be demonstrated?
	Martin: where "implementations" mean tools that process WS-CDL documents and produce end-point(s)
	Charlton: The generated endpoints can be demonstrated with compliant consumers per our dependencies
	Yves: Martin's proposal (above) looks OK to address the concerns raised at the last F2F
	Martin: insert the bullet:
	Martin: End points have been generated from two different implementations.
	Martin: insert the text:
	Martin: where "implementations" mean tools that process WS-CDL documents and produce end-point(s)
	
	PROPOSAL ADOPTED
	NEW ACTION: Yves to add the above sentence in the entrance criteria in the status xection
	Agreed. New bullet and text to be added to the spec a per Martin's proposal
	
	Martin: Is this all that's needed to move to CR?
	SRT: Anything else needed, Yves?
	Yves: No
	Martin: Do we want to change the core impl time?
	Yves: Discussed postpoining end of CR a bit at last conf call given that we will need 2 impls?
	SRT: 6 months? :-)
	SRT: (realistically)
	Abbie: Two additional implementations?
	SRT: Two in total
	Martin: At least two
	SRT: In terms of moving to PR, we will need at least two impls
	SRT: All intents and purposes, CR is as close as possible to being a standard without being one
	Martin: Shall we set the date to the end of March 2006, then?
	Maertin: End date March 31st 2006
	NO OBJECTIONS TO RESETTING THE DATE
	NO OBJECTIONS TO EXTEND THE CHARTER TO THE END OF MARCH 2006
	PROPOSAL ADOPTED
	NEW ACTION: Yves to move the end of CR to March 31st 2006

7. Primer plan
-----------------

	SRT: Sent out new rev of the primer, taking into account most (although not all) the changes brought in July 2005
	SRT: We need to tighten the plans for the primer - including who will be writing which examples
	SRT: In a day or two we should see Pi4Tech's newest example(s)
	Gary: Includes concurrent performance, and proposed change to the namespace
	Yves: Will experiement tomorrow and give to SRT what he wants in this regard
	
	Monica: Guideline for commenting on the latest rev of the primer
	NEW ACTION: SRT to put on the agenda "primer structure"
	SRT: I'd rather focus on structure the next call, rather than small editorial changes
	SRT: This document will be our main sales weapon to promote CDL

8. Next F2F
-----------
http://www.oracle.com/global/uk/corporate/locations/city.html
Martin's action to sort out venue and hotels with Oracle is CLOSED

	Next: London F2F
	Dates: Start 09.00 on the 12th, end 18.00 on the 13th
	Monica: I'll be there 12 December. Thanks.
	Martin: I'll confirm that we will support a bridge for the F2F (i.e. have a speakerphone at the facility)
	SRT: We should have an agenda by EOB tomorrow
	Location: http://www.oracle.com/global/uk/corporate/locations/city.html

9. AOB
----------
NONE

SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
------------------


1. NEW ACTION: SRT to sort out hotels for the Dec F2F
2. NEW ACTION: Yves to change the namespace to /2005/10/cdl
3. NEW ACTION: Yves to add the above sentence in the entrance criteria in the status xection
4. NEW ACTION: Yves to move the end of CR to March 31st 2006
5. NEW ACTION: SRT to put on the agenda "primer structure"