Web Services CG

6 Mar 2007

See also: IRC log


Philippe, Carine, Jacek, Paul Downey, Yves, Steve, Paul Cotton, Chris Ferris, Bob Freund



Philippe: approval of previous minutes

[minutes approved]

Philippe: goes through the agenda

Next distributed meetings

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

Status report

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

From chairs@w3.org

Philippe: see link to chairs call agenda


Philippe: no update

Time change?

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

Last Call for Web Services Addressing 1.0 - Metadata

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.

Web Services Choreography

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

Web of Services session at WWW2007

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

Web of Services for Enterprise Computing workshop

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

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/03/14 00:45:25 $