IRC log of ws-cg on 2002-09-03

Present: Jonathan Marsh, Dave Hollander, Eric Miller, David Fallside, Hugo Haas (joined at 1.15pm EDT)

[em]

agenda - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-cg/2002Aug/0000.html

scribe - collaborative effort agreed in IRC

[DavidF]

ACTION: Hugo to follow-up on MEP document and most likely open a WSAWG issue about it [2]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/23-ws-cg-irc#T17-08-53

ACTION: MC to inform XML CG that WS may have reqs re. processing and call for reqs should include WS WGs [changed owner] [3]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/23-ws-cg-irc#T17-09-03

ACTION: MC and JM to continue trying to find venue for f2f, and figure out whether or not to have an overlap day [4]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/23-ws-cg-irc#T17-09-08

ACTION: DF to contact Kelvin L and JM to contact Chris Kaler re. potential future liason and to ask them when [7]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/23-ws-cg-irc#T17-26-33

ACTION: DF to ask DaveH whether he is willing to take on XML CG co-ord role (in which case we will not ask Jonathan to take over in Sept) [8]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/23-ws-cg-irc#T17-49-43

[DavidF]

ACTION 1= Hugo to follow-up on MEP document and most likely open a WSAWG issue about it

[Marsh]

ACTION 1= Hugo (or Dave) to follow-up on MEP document and most likely open a WSAWG issue about it

[DavidF]

klawrenc@us.ibm.com

ACTION 4, closed

[Marsh]

ACTION: JM to ask Kelvin and Chris to attend next time, to report on W3C-OASIS meeting, first WS-Security FTF, and any thoughts on liasons.

[DavidF]

ckaler@microsoft.com

ACTION- 4

[Marsh]

Zakim, P2 is Hugo

[DavidF]

ACTION- 5

[Zakim]

sorry, Marsh, I do not recognize a party named 'P2'

[DavidF]

discussion of agenda item #5 ....

[Marsh]

Dave: There has been a proposal for a choreography charter on the Arch mailing list.

Dave: Arch is responsible for advising on the scope of the work.

Dave: There is a sense of urgency to getting this group up and running, prior to the first draft of the architecture.

Dave: We're having a ftf next week, and will bring the scope question to the floor, and whether the group will recommend to the CG that such a group be chartered.

Dave: From a tech viewpoint, the only real issue is whether choreography is needed, RESTful archs don't need it. And there's a slide into Routing.

Dave: Holder of this opinion will not hold it up.

Dave: Belief that a wide-open charter is best, starting with partitioning the space.

DavidF: Partitioning technology or WGs?

Dave: technology

[em]

DavidF: if i understand you correctly... the suggestion is to provide a open charter and make one of the first deliverables to help define the partion of the work?

[DavidF]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2002Aug/0054.html

is the URL for the proposed charter, and the beginning of a thread

Note from the scribe: a public version of the proposal is available at http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/09/chor-proposal.html.

[Marsh]

Eric: Concerned about open charters in general. Groups can twist charters, makes delivering deliverables on time difficult.

[DavidF]

EM concerned about giving WGs open charters

[Marsh]

Eric: How does this fit into the Architecture?

DavidF: Why would an Arch group give an open charter (implying Arch work) to another WG?

Dave: Strong sense of urgency to make timely response to the choreography work because there's so much out there.

[em]

DavidF: wouldnt it simpley be quicker for the ws-arch to define a task force to identify a choreagraphy architecture?

[DavidF]

DH: no 'cos the appropriate experts not involved

[em]

Dave: No, the Choreography experts are not part of this ws-arch group and the group (or 12? on the call) thought it would be simpler and faster to charter another group

[Marsh]

Eric: How does this relate to WSDL? Implied functional requirements...

Eric: Is this work focussed on WSCI? Bringing it together with other work in the space?

[em]

proposed Choreography Working charter -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2002Aug/att-0054/01-part

[DavidF]

DF asks group for their opinions re. the proposed open-ended charter ....

JM concerned that it is the wrong appraoch and exists for political reasons

DH agrees (?)

DF infers there is a belief in WS Arch that giving a WG some leeway could result in a faster process

DH Notes the proposed charter is no "looser" than was XML Schema

s/Notes/notes/

[HugoH]

JM: It is too early for starting this work. The WSAWG should investigate the choreography area more: it has not enough traction in the industry.

HH: The WSAWG should discuss the scope of the proposed work and see if they agree that such work can be started in parallel with the Architecture work.

[DavidF]

ACTION: DH & MC to report on charter progress from WS ARch f2f mtg

[Zakim]

WS_WSCG()1:00PM has ended

[DavidF]

rrsagent, bye

[RRSAgent]

I see 5 open action items:

ACTION: Hugo (or Dave) to follow-up on MEP document and most likely open a WSAWG issue about it [1]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/09/03-ws-cg-irc#T17-07-20

ACTION: MC to inform XML CG that WS may have reqs re. processing and call for reqs should include WS WGs [changed owner] [3] [2]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/09/03-ws-cg-irc#T17-07-32

ACTION: MC and JM to continue trying to find venue for f2f, and figure out whether or not to have an overlap day [4] [3]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/09/03-ws-cg-irc#T17-07-40

ACTION: JM to ask Kelvin and Chris to attend next time, to report on W3C-OASIS meeting, first WS-Security FTF, and any thoughts on liasons. [6]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/09/03-ws-cg-irc#T17-17-50

ACTION: DH & MC to report on charter progress from WS ARch f2f mtg [7]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/09/03-ws-cg-irc#T18-03-44