See also: IRC log
<hugo> http://www.w3.org/2004/05/11-ws-cg-minutes.html approved
<hugo> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/cg/2/03/schedule
<hugo> August choreography hosted by Enigmatec at Royal Society
<hugo> SeptOct will be in NYC, at Novell
<hugo> the dates will be 28-30 September
<hugo> ACTION: Hugo to update the WSCG calendar with WS Chor details
<hugo> ACTION: CG to ping Addison about progress and rechartering [IN PROGRESS]
<hugo> Hugo: this is to make sure that the CG is aware of progress in the WS I18N TF
<hugo> ACTION: chairs to send pointers to their WGs about reviewing I18N [PENDING]
<hugo> ACTION 3 = chairs to send pointers to their WGs about reviewing I18N documents
<hugo> -- Choreography:
<hugo> Martin: we've had a f2f 2 weeks ago
Choreography invited Bill Specht and Matthew Arnot representing fpML and TWIST observed.
The F2F consisted mostly walkthroughs and issues classification and examples based on our latest WD of WS-CDL.
The latest draft of WS-CDL is: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ws-cdl-10-20040427/
We did a lot of planning too. And we understand that a number of other docs are necessary including a Primer and Interop document. We havn't planned in detail for these choosing instead to concentrate on the spec.
We have been using issues in bugzilla. We have been doing a triarge on the issues list and the F2F accepted the recommedation from the issues subgroup.
We have classified the issues into about 5 areas which helps us manage the issues resolution.
We also sat down and worked through a simple TWIST-based example from our observers. Nick K led as expert on WS-CDL. Many issues were raised which helped the understanding of WS-CDL.
Last weeks meeting of Choreo we finished the categorisation.
See choreo minutes for further details.
F2F Description report
Fairly successful. Goal was to work thro part 3 issues and hopefully close them all.
We reviewed the document first and identified another 15 issues. And then we managed to close many of the issues and only have 6 issues left on part 3 despite the newly raised ones.
The issues are not trivial but not areas of contention.
After this we need to go back to Part1 and Part2 and some issues have been raised against them.
Last Call is only days away, which we shall probably just miss.
We made progress on media type description too. Raised 10 issues against it. And resolved some.
-- WSWIG
Not much except that at the AC meeting suggestions were made and Carine will contact them to bottom out what is needed.
-- SWEB
A whirl wind for the past months. OWL and RDF are causing a stir as they go through the process.
<em> http://www.w3.org/2004/Talks/0520-em-swa/
<em> http://www.w3.org/2004/04/13-swdd/
The conf last week (see url above) gave a talk on where we are and where we are going and an overview of the activities. Also some deployment examples which has applicability to this group. Some of these show how semantic web data and web services might interact.
And the end of the week (see second url) I gave a developer talk. Might be some potential for symbiosis between communities.
Finally we have been spending time on is Atom (see later in the agenda).
JM: What kind of areas does the symbiosis manifest itself?
EM: One is low hanging fruit for access and representation of data (BrandSoft). Web Services interfaces to semantic web data. Second is policy except that I don't really know what a policy is.
JM: Policy describes what not how for things like security.
EM: Haystacks is looking at virtual web services as opposed to static it becomes dynamic as services are not known until runtime.
... Brandsoft is in the first. Haystacks is in the second url.
<em> http://haystack.lcs.mit.edu/
<em> haystack homepage
EM: Atom effort email was sent earlier this week: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-cg/2004May/0008.html
... Good source of good use cases. Atom is a syndication format and protocol for editing web logs.
... It ships meta data around and provides apis to interact with the data in some way. With lots of push/pull interactions.
MC: Is this related to RSS?
EM: Yes it is very much related. It is an attempt to move things along further than RSS can go at the moment and thereby clean up and extend the necessary functionality.
... What is of interest to us here is the protocol part. They have a draft spec which uses SOAP. It seems like a good example of the SOAP get/post functionality.
... Might be big potential to use our standard technology. The syndication part is probably closer to EM's work.
...
... We have proposed to the Atom community that W3C is a good place to continue this work because they have evolved and touch a lot of parts of W3C. The Atom API touches on SOAP and they have a strong RDF model to all of this.
... Does this group have input into this?
... Follow up meeting June 2nd at Sun to decide where they will do the work. It could be W3C or IETF.
... Feel free to contact this group, Hugo and Eric to gather opinion. Now is the time to move forward on this.
SRT described the problems seemingly to do with scalability and SOAP. How do we best deal with these issues being raised.
Hugo: They should get involved in these working groups and use their public mailing lists and start a dialogue to understand how to describe their problems and provide solutions.
AOB: ... Any question on DavidF's email (see agenda url).