Dial in information (members only): http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/admin#meetings
Role Call
Confirm scribe
The following is a list of recent scribes (in order): David Burdett, John Dart, Carol MacDonald, Yaron Goland, Daniel Austin, Jim Hendler, Peter Furniss, Ed Peters, Greg Ritzinger, Leonard Greski
Approve minutes
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Apr/att-0246/Minutes_from_15April2003.htm
Action Item Review
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/reqs/2003/04/WD-ws-chor-requirements-20030414.html
Process and procedures
Requirements
Where to send requirements and comments
Review requirements comments (continuing from last week)
Understanding CSF (from last week)
b. Issues
Appointment of an issues editor (volunteers)
c. Glossary
Appointment of a gloassary editor (Thanks to Monica for her sterling work thus far. Lets formalise)
Review of glossary thus far
Focus for the next 6 months
Response to Oasis and WSBPEL (possible outreach)
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/wsbpel/charter.php
Response to SWSI (possible outreach)
http://www.swsi.org/
Discussion of timetable to make requirements public (deferred from last week)
Other deliverables
Base line specifications
Intermediate specifications
Testcases
Generators
Reusable choreographies and data formats (deferred from last week)
Choreography storage and retrieval (hot topic from the public mailing list)
What do we search on?
Dealing with incomplete information?
The role of rules?
Dynamically changing participants in a choreography (hot topic from public mailing list)
Formal models and choreography (hot topic from public mailing list)
The value of the value of the pi-calculus
What about petrinets
What is a process (hot topic from the mailing list)
AOB.
|
Chairs: |
|
|
Oracle | |
|
Enigmatec | |
|
|
|
|
W3C Staff Contacts |
|
|
|
Members:
|
Arjuna Technologies Ltd | |
|
BEA Systems | |
|
Choreology Ltd | |
|
Cisco Systems Inc | |
|
Commerce One | |
|
Computer Associates | |
|
EDS | |
|
Fujitsu Ltd | |
|
Hewlett-Packard | |
|
Hitachi, Ltd. | |
|
Intalio Inc. | |
|
Intalio Inc. | |
|
IONA | |
|
Nortel Networks | |
|
Novell | |
|
Oracle Corporation | |
|
Oracle Corporation | |
|
SAP AG | |
|
SeeBeyond Technology Corporation | |
|
Software AG | |
|
Sun Microsystems, Inc. | |
|
Sun Microsystems, Inc. | |
|
TIBCO Software | |
|
W. W. Grainger, Inc. | |
|
W. W. Grainger, Inc. | |
|
webMethods, Inc. |
Raw IRC log at: http://www.w3.org/2003/04/22-ws-chor-irc
Abbie Barbir, Nortel, kindly volunteered to scribe for the meeting.
Draft minutes at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Apr/att-0246/Minutes_from_15April2003.htm
Frank: We are not the only group doing choreography work
standardization
Steve Ross-Talbot: do you want to make a change to the minutes
Frank: No
Minutes approved with no dissent
.Hugo Haas: Creation of editors mailing list is in progress due to
be complete by the end of the week :
Hugo is not on the call,
this action item is still in progress
Possible hosting of a future face 2 face meeting on the East
Coast by Novell, Sun and Sonic respectively.
Carol McDonald (Sun) in progress
Dave Chappel (Sonic) not on the call at this time
Greg Ritzinger (Novell) in progress
May have an offer from SAP in Germany: in progress
SRT will prepare list of places for harvesting use cases and send list to WG list
(recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/04/08-ws-chor-irc#T20-41-43 ) – Not Done
Chairs to compose list of tasks for a call for SME volunteers in next week's call
(recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/04/08-ws-chor-irc#T20-42-02) – not done
Martin to extract requirements and issues from the minutes
in http://www.w3.org/2003/04/08-ws-chor-irc#T21-18-59 - Done. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Apr/0224.html
Daniel Austin: Will put out a proposal for formally recording
use cases and the problem they are trying to address.
Done.
See
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2003Apr/0028.html
Steve: How about the use case experts,
this was done before submitting the use case terminology.
Daniel Austin: Intention is to take advantage of his boss a Use Case expert and plans to use this to
help propose a formal approach to defining use cases. Assumes this
will be a UP based use case with pre conditions, post conditions,
diagram.
Daniel, we need more feedback on the draft document.
Martin Chapman /Len Greski to talk offline about use cases. Done.
All: Review requirements document and provide feedback to
editors.
Daniel: Need more feedback.
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/reqs/2003/04/WD-ws-chor-requirements-20030414.html
All: Everyone should read the CSF(critical success factors) part of
the WSA spec to understand what it is about.
http://www.w3.org/TR/wsa-reqs
Daniel: Material
will be send that describes CSF.
Steve: People need
to read the doc or there is no need to do it.
Those that
own the items need to send comment to the list and the
chairs.
a. Requirements
1. Where to send requirements and
comments
Steve: Where to send it
Daniel: Assaf send some suggested requirements. These need
to be sent to the isses mailing list. The editors can find them
easier. Steve can you send the e-mail of the issues list.
Steve: I am confused on the issues list, I posted and got
e-mail saying no one is subscribed to the list.
Daniel: This is a good point. This should be on today
agenda. Someone should watch the list. I will subscribe myself and
Abbie. Good call.
Steve: We need to filter that out.
Daniel: Where are we on the requirement: No change for the
next week or two, untill the use case terminology, CSF are decided.
The third bullet, on the use cases, every one should recive by now
the templete for use cases. This proposed how to use the standard
UML for the use cases. The document has been posted this afternoon.
Everybody take an action item to review the doc in detail and
review it in the next meeting.
2. Review requirements comments
(continuing from last week) – not discussed
3. Understanding CSF (from last week)
– not discussed –pending action for people to
read
b. Issues
Appointment of an issues editor (volunteers)
1. Need an issue editor
2. Daniel: There is responsibility about this including publishing
how issues where done and a document will be needed.
3. Daniel: There is an XML templete and style sheet for issues.
Need to thank Dave Hollander for that
4. Steve: Any volunteers, otherwise we can address that next
week
5. Daniel: Action item to Yves to add Abbie and Daniel to the
list.
c. Glossary
Appointment of a gloassary editor (Thanks to Monica for her
sterling work thus far. Lets formalise)
Steve: Thanks to Monica.
Review of glossary thus far
Monica: Any comment or changes are provided and read. Thanks to feedback from Hugo. DO we need to go over all of these.
Steve: Just go over the comments
Monica: There are about five or six items with comments.
Composition is one example. DO we need to talk about it now or on
the list
Steve: just go over the comments, and the rest on the
list.
Monica: Had a question about nested process and sub process,
do we need additional details
Steve: Regarding composition ???
Moinica, then we may need to add nested, and we need to be
clear.
Franc: Composition is not a trivial subject. DO not assume
that we are ready to have a definition
Monica: I will capture that and then fwd to the chairs
Steve: This is a potential discussion item. Is there a use
case
Franc: Yes, someone adding something to Amzon.com without
there permission.
Monica: He is talking about an example so we can clear the
definiion
Steve: Composition whether in cheorgraphy or not is a
difficult term
John DarK: Whether we can reach that definition or not, it
may be hard
Monica: We can have a starting definition. I recived a
definition from Hugo on Conversation. Monica reads the
definiton.
Monica, goes over the definition of correlation.
Franc: There is 2 separate things: Structure of the
conversation and knowing the given token of the conversation.
Monica: It could be both.
Franc: I am tasked with the definition in WSA
Steve: I understood is how a message relate to which part of
the conversation
Franc: Need a definition of the conversation part.
Monica: Put in on the issues list
Monica: Global Model (Monica, goes over the definition), the
comment here, need to talk about the definition,
Monica: Hugo asked about the definition of Operation. Need
clarification on that.
xxx: I think we need a definiton of a service type, should
go on the issue list
Monica: On arbitration: Need to keep it open
Steve: It is not clear what the definition is and which one
is valkid for this document.
Monica: We can put them in table and apply some type of
context to them
Monica: Definition of a Process. Several suggestions were
provided.
Monica: Role: Hugo gave a definition. The team should decide
which definition to use.
Monica: Service Type: WSG had a different definition. Need
to talk about it.
Monica: State: Some suggestion were added with an
example.
Steve: Thanks, any issues post them ASAP to the list. Need
to get Ack from people ASAP.
Monica: I will update and repost.
Daniel: Group Need Ack with a time limit.
Steve: Yes, do that in two weeks or less.
Steve: If people are putting in work and there is no
feedback, it would make it hard to see if the process is working or
not
Jeff: People need to pay attention when they are in a formal process. When it matters basically. Need deadline basically.
Steve: I will figure that next week
Daniel: Steve, let us decide that Ack comes with
[subject:Ack]
Steve: Ok. I will give it some thought
Need to deal with OASIS (WSBPEL) and SWSI within this WG.
Need to invite the co-chairs into the F2F.
Daniel: Microsoft have stated that they went that route,
they said there is no official laison between the various
groups
Steve: That is what we are trying to do
Daniel: I support that
David: Put a motion that all that are in both WG to work
together
No objections received to inviting the WS BPEL TC chairs to the june F2F.
Action: Chairs to invite WS BPEL TC chairs to the June F2F.
Steve: There were an initiative for the semantic web (SWSI).
It is a new group. There has been interest in it. It is very new.
It is much longer looking than our charter. There may be some stuff
that could we use. It is also on the automatic generation of web
services on the fly. There are all kinds of people in there. It
makes sense to inquire politely about their work.
Franc: Do we have issue to decide if we are focusing on procedure or semantic points. If we are going to focus on the process, then I would say that there will not be too much contact. If we focus on service composition, then there will be a lot of interaction
Steve: It is useful, which way we go.
a. Discussion of timetable to make requirements public (deferred
from last week)
Steve: Daniel how aggressive can we be
Daniel : By the F2F in June. It will not be a heart beat, but a
doc, and then we will publish before each F2F (one week before the
meeting).
Steve: Actioned to summarize the use cases.
Daniel: Need a cutoff of May 27 for material so it will make it in
the doc.
Mike Champion: People resubmit or withdraw use cases based on the
conversation that we had about people.
Steve: Let us rethink the use cases based on other groups work and
then decide if we will be in a complimentary role or a competing
role.
Mike: We may need to rethink the use cases.
Martin: do we have F2F dates.
Steve need to update the Web Site
None