See also: IRC log
Philippe: approval of previous minutes
[minutes approved]
Philippe: goes through the agenda
Philippe: next meeting, Mar 20
[no regrets]
Philippe: following is April 3, I'm on vacation from March 27 to April 11.
Chris: what about DST change?
Philippe: call in two weeks would be at 1pm Eastern time
Philippe: anything to report in particular?
Jacek: reports on initial discussions of SAWSDL WG future, will send email about that
Steve: we passed exit criteria in
choreography
... one implementation has met the exit criteria
Philippe: on WSDL 2.0: the group is moving to Proposed Recommendation in a couple of weeks
Philippe: see link to chairs call agenda
Philippe: no update
PaulD: I have a personal conflict with the CG
call time
... an alternative time convenient for everybody would be welcome by me,
otherwise can leave after first 1/2 h
... it's Tuesdays and Thursdays
Philippe: we can't change it on Tuesdays,
unless it's for a lot later
... that'd be inconvenient for many
... same time, another day?
<Steve> Wed okay for me.
<Steve> Thu I can't do and Tue I can't do.
Chris, PaulC: cannot do other day same time
Philippe: conflicts earlier on Tuesday?
Chris: can do that
PaulC: same
Philippe: let's keep current time, revisit after SAWSDL is closed, then we can move 1h earlier
Philippe: issue between RX/Addressing/Policy
not resolved yet but seems on the good track. No need to discuss it here as
far as I know.
Philippe: what are we getting at the end of the month from choreography, when charter runs out?
Steve: one implementation passes tests, no
second
... adoption in process with ISO and OMG
... lot of traction, but mismatch with exit criteria
Philippe: what are you planning to do at the end of the month?
Steve: no good answer, request further extension hoping for another impl, or consider changing exit criteria
Jacek: what does the implementation do?
Steve: it graphically creates choreographies,
checking the CDL, generates stuff from it
... acts as overarching arch description of a distributed system
PaulC: what's the prior art on post-facto changes of exit criteria?
Philippe: the director decides, Steve can make
his case in front of the director that the spec should move forward
... can't remember real precedents
... Steve, can you make the case in front of the Director?
Steve: I can try, can't say if it's
sufficient
... we've been waiting for the second impl for a long time
Philippe: we could park it in CR
... and restart the group when an impl comes
Steve: we plan to finish the updates based on the impl feedback, then no further planned work
Philippe: what's the status of the primer/companion?
Steve: WG note in publication process
Yves: technical problems with publishing as HTML
Philippe: Steve, you need to make up your mind
Steve: a more limited call would be helpful
Jacek: publishing as Rec with changed criteria could speed up implementation
PaulC: bad idea, would lower perception of
CR
... CR integrity should be maintained
... there are precedents (infoset) for CR exit criteria being adoption
Philippe: my bar is high for WS specs in
interoperability, number of implementations
... we'll have a private call with Steve, Yves, Martin and try to decide
Steve: it's been a lot of work, no idea why no impl efforts if standards bodies are picking it up
Chris: the drafts are not going away, the option of resurrecting the group after impl would be logical
Philippe: the DOM level 3 spec was in that situation, and it did work
PaulC: yes, that was longest time in CR,
right?
... maybe this should happen here?
PaulD: we should be careful about the quality of CR, and the group selected its criteria
Steve: a number of academic projects are using it
PaulD: if you go to stasis, you guys can push
people towards implementation
... choreography has no central engine like orchestration, but it seems that
industry wants to control things centrally
Steve: interoperability can be with other specs
PaulC: infoset did that
Steve: choreography can be viewed as an
abstract description (not only, but too)
... we won't get any further here, I don't think
Philippe: not sure if we should include WSDL
2.0
... any interest in participation?
... any suggestion on the form - e.g. it could be a panel, not a series of
talks (suggested by Jacek)
Chris: these are all gonna be covered, or potential topics?
Philippe: potential topics, we have 90m
Chris: what panel topic?
Jacek: perhaps "the future of WS in W3C" ?
Philippe: people interested? Know about Jacek
...
... will work with Jacek on more detailed program
Philippe: I'm still not done processing the results of the workshop last week, we'll have a report in a few weeks
PaulC: any straw polls there?
Philippe: yes, "what needs to be fixed"?
... and the prioritization
... results: WS-Core WG was strongly supported
... we discussed it for maintenance here before
... but it could also maintain test suite, organize interop events etc.
... so the workshop proposed a bigger scope
... if created, such a group should be as open as can be
... further items from the poll: vertical groups for specific use cases,
industries
... data binding had a lot of frustration
... bindings to FTP, JMS, not only HTTP
... what do you think about putting interop stuff in the WS-Core group?
Jacek: good idea
Chris: the more testing the better, but IP has to be clear
PaulC: skeptical: it's great that people nominate other people to do testing, it's great thing in a charter, but the resources seldom come
Bob: +1
Chris: testing is good, agree with the concern of Paul, if we can get commitments, that'd be good
Philippe: there was a lot of finger-pointing
PaulC: we work a lot with customers to find out
what they need
... apologies we weren't there
... I believe a WS-Core WG could be structured so that MS would be able to
join
... it could be the best for maintenance stuff
Philippe: nothing prevents us from putting anything about interop in the charter, at the end of the day it's about whether people are interesting
Bob: the issue about interop: it would require
a flaming issue to start real interop work
... putting text about it in the charter would indicate that it's impossible
otherwise
Chris: an interest group could focus on interop
Philippe: I'll bring it back again
... talk to you in 2 weeks
meeting adjourned