See also: IRC log
Chair: MikeC and DaveH
<dbooth> zakim info: http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html
... frank, see the RDF of the IRC at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/19-ws-arch-irc.rdf
... To add yourself to zakim's phone number database, so that zakim will recognize you when you call: http://www.w3.org/1998/12/bridge/info/name.php3
Scribe: F2F meeting preparations:
Scribe: MikeC: Agenda –
F2F meeting preparations ,
requirements documents –
XMLP specs comments
. architecture pictures update
Scribe: - MikeC: make sure your statements are rightly captured in the F2F minutes
<dbooth> ACTION: MikeC to note AllenBrooks as RogueWave attendee at F2F
Scribe: DavidO will need more time to make his changes to the F2F meeting records
Frank: has the Friday session minutes taken and distributed?
MarkJ: Took the notes - they are IRC logs - wants to know what to do with it
MikeC: The chair will do the cleaning up, and make it available
<dbooth> ACTION: dbooth to send MarkJ a draft of the Friday F2F minutes, based on the IRC log, for MarkJ to work from.
MikeC: Once again requests to ensure quotes from people are correct in the notes
MikeC: Talked to the IPR people at W3C
<dbooth> dbooth: My understanding is that the scribe should pretty up the minutes from his/her own notes and submit them to the MEMBER ONLY list ( firstname.lastname@example.org ). The chair needs to add the attendee list (which the chair has), or send it to the scribe for inclusion, and after the WG approves the minutes, they are sent to the public list.
MikeC: Would prefer to stick to the technical issues in
... What do people think about the action item that EricM brings - to clarify the relationship between WSA and Web Services TAG
... Does not see much interest in pursuing it.
... DaveH brings an issue I18N, and must be in issues list
Scribe: ACTION: I18N is in issues list to chair
MikeC: Action item - read and respond to arch document continues forward
MikeC: There is an all group W3C meeting in Boston on
March 3-7, 2003 - the W3C chairs have been asked questions.
... Rather than attend the formal meeting, gather information from other meetings?
DavidO: Prefers to have a F2F
MikeC: Any preference on the days?
DaveH: Prefer end of the week for collecting impressions from other meetings
MikeC: Take a strawpoll?
... Overlap with WSD -
... Not overlap or to overlap with WSD?
<jeffm> +1 no overlap with WSD
MikeC: 4 people prefer no overlap with WSD
... 2 people prefer no overlap with XMLP
... Monday - Tuesday?
... No preference
... 6 people prefer
... Anybody who cannot attend March 3-7, 2003?
Scribe: No response - too far in the future
MikeC: Who wants to attend the plenary meeting - it will
be technical this time
... 9 people would attend plenary meeting
... External observers for F2F?
JeffM: Allowing the other observers?
Frank: Incude jounalists?
MikeC: Will clarify
... Sees no objection to include other W3C WG folks
MikeC: Reported briefly on W3C WSCG discussions in the list. W3C WSCG asked for clarifications.
Which of the inputs mentioned in the choreography proposals are necessary and which are desirable.
Promise to discuss it today.
... dbooth Fallside took an action item to work with W3C Mgmt to get the submissions done.
<jeffm> where are the CG logs/minutes
Hugo: Will make the logs available right NOW!
Doug: What is exactly expected by CG?
MikeC: Wants clarifications on what we want from this - for example WSCI, WSCL (both are W3C notes), BPEL, BPML, BPSS
Suresh: BPML is from BPMI.org, BPSS is from UN/CEFACT, formerly OASIS, and is from the ebXML suite of specs.
MikeC: Is it necessary to get these inputs, and what W3C
should do if it does not get inputs?
... categorize them?
Ugo: All of these are necessary - because from a political point of view, the WG will start as a co-operative effort, and does not want to miss that
DaveH: Better vs. must should be clarified
MikeC: Must - if W3C canot get submitted, it would imply WG will not proceed
Ugo: Needs all because otherwise there will not be full support
DavidO: Smaller list will encourage submission/better participation
MikeC: Which ones are must
DavidO: BEA thinks - BPEL and WSCI are must to good to have
JeffM: Is the input ideas for a base document?
MikeC: BPEL has a fairly restrictive copyright - will feel uncomfortable with BPEL spec unless submitted to W3C
DavidO/BEA: believes BPEL/WSCI in the union of the necessary/desirable boxes.
DavidH: All are ramifications
MarkJ: BPEL and WSCI are key also
MarkJ: Other groups will follow W3C lead if we have a decent spec - e.g. ebXML uses SOAP
<dbooth> From Thursday's F2F minutes:
Suresh: BPML and BPSS have a user base, and therefore are necessary
... Consensus: We should ask W3C management to work with the authors of other specs listed in the chor wg charter proposal to get them to the table.
... Thursday's draft minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2002Sep/att-0056/01-arch-02-09-12-3.htm
... (some corrections are still pending)
DavidO: W3C must approach BPEL?
Suresh: BPML and BPEL are pretty close, whereas BPSS is modeling B2B choreography, and is another dimension. It will be helpful to have them come to talk to us.
JeffM: Shall we cut and paste from their spec if we use it?
MikeC: Need to clarify - based on the will of the WG, we should be able to do this
DavidH: Must and want diff must be captured
JeffH: a binary poll on each of these specs?
Hugo: Clarify how exactly it means to use a
submitted spec? Mikec: didn't get the clarification
... Find out which ones ae really important to get?
JeffH: Need technical advice to have a technical group started on the specs
DougB: What work can be done with submitted material?
DavidH: "these materials are technically required" for the process
MikeC: Any of them are not desirable?
JeffM: Just because something is submitted doesn't mean IP is available royalty free
Gerald: We can say it is a technical req. to do what others have done, but if it is not submitted, then we need to do this
<dbooth> In operational terms,
... W3M can't contact "the specs". W3M can contact companies. W3M will be asked to contact certain companies and encourage them to participate, based on important work they've done in the area of choreography. Which companies are most important for W3M to contact?
DBooth: W3C is requested to contact what?
MikeC: straw poll on teh specs
... Who thinks WSCI is necessary
Scribe: 7 people say yes
... 7 people think that WSCI is technically required, consensus on highly desirable
... On WSCL?
... Ugo thinks it is technically required 2 people think it is not highly desirable
MikeC: BPEL4WS, and its dependent portions in WS-Coordination and WS-Transaction are technically required?
Scribe: 6 people say yes, consensus it is highly
... 4 people think BPML is technically required, 4 not highly desirable
... There is a spectrum between tech. reqd. to "not highly desirable" i.e., nice to have
<jeffm> i think there are very good ideas in all of the docs and that the WG ought to be able to consider them
... 3 people BPSS is technically required and not highly desirable - 3 vote
MikeC: Wanted these inputs to make CG understand
... Requirement document wrap-up
Scribe: Asks Hugo for clarification
Hugo: Sent email on MEPs, layering, etc. Would like to
add it to the issues list
... Meaning of "Identification of partners" is an issue - there is a thread
Scribe: ACTION: Put this in the next week's agenda
MikeC: Comments on XMLP - drafted by ChrisF
... Anybody wants to push back on the responses, XMLP folks want it soon
... XMLP will put a last call on XMLP attachments spec
Scribe: -- late October time frame
MikeC: EOT - can't get into the arch discussions today.
The more we can get usable proce for glossary, teh better.
... Adding prose around pictures will help too
ACTION: I18N is in issues list to chair
ACTION: MikeC to note AllenBrooks as RogueWave attendee at F2F
ACTION: What is Identification (Hugo)? Put this in the next week's agenda
ACTION: dbooth to send MarkJ a draft of the Friday F2F minutes, based on the IRC log, for MarkJ to work from.