1Role Call
Confirm scribe
Approve minutes
Action Item Review
17 ongoing action items and 3 new actions from last week.
Standing tracking items (a section designed to ensure that longer running items are properly tracked)
Requirements (progress/review)
Mission Statement
Issue tracking (progress/review)
Task forces (progress/review)
BurdettML
Threads (on the archive not covered elsewhere in the agenda
Composition (the atoms) or Where do we ground?
Can we get consensus on this?
Choreography protocol (not cov ered)
Choreography State Definition (not covered)
Proposed text for Choreography concepts (not covered)
Decision Points Requirement Proposals (not covered)
AOB.
|
Enigmatec | ||
|
|
| |
|
W3C Staff Contacts |
| |
|
|
| |
Attendees:
|
BEA Systems | |
|
Choreology Ltd | |
|
Cisco Systems Inc | |
|
Commerce One | |
|
Fujitsu Ltd | |
|
Hitachi, Ltd. | |
|
National Computerization Agency | |
|
Novell | |
|
SAP AG | |
|
SeeBeyond Technology Corporation | |
|
Software AG | |
|
Sun Microsystems, Inc. | |
|
University of Maryland (Mind Lab) | |
|
BEA Systems | |
|
Choreology Ltd | |
|
Cisco Systems Inc | |
|
Commerce One | |
|
Fujitsu Ltd | |
|
Hitachi, Ltd. | |
|
National Computerization Agency | |
|
Novell |
Regrets:
Paul Lipton (Computer Associates), Jean-Jacques Dubray, Martin Chapman (Oracle)
Tony Fletcher (Choreology Ltd), kindly volunteered to scribe for the meeting.
The following is a list of recent scribes (in order):Kevin Liu, Tony Fletcher, Jon Dart, David Burdett, Ed Peters, Greg Ritzinger, Monica Martin, Len Greski, Jean-Jacques Dubray, Monica Martin, Mayilraj Krishnan, Francis McCabe, Michael Champion, Abbie Barbir, David Burdett, Jon Dart, Carol McDonald, Yaron Goland, Leonard Greski, Ed Peters, Greg Ritzinger, Daniel Austin, Peter Furniss, Jim Hendler
Minutes 15th July Conf Call were approved.
ACTION: Chairs, Arrange hosting for September 2003 face-to-face in Seattle. DONE
Dates for this are Monday the 15th September and from 9am until 17th September midday (it should be noted that WSBPEL technical committee plan to meet 17th September in the afternoon through to the 19th September in a nearby location). The meeting is to be hosted by Attachmate in Seattle area.
ACTION: Chairs, Oversee the organisation of the task forces. ONGOING
Not all TFs kicked off yet Organisation of task forces - partly done - make this a standing item from now on rather than an action.
ACTION: Martin to track back through past minutes for issues and put into Bugzilla. ONGOING
ACTION: Chairs, have an agenda item on the requirement to have some level of understanding of the meaning of messages and what that level should be, when Jim Hendler can be on the call – perhaps put on the agenda for two weeks' time.
This led to some discussion after Steve said he would not be doing this until there was a use case. Some expressed the concern this meant the item would get dropped, but it was agreed that we do need some framework for discussing why semantics of messages is important for Choreography. This group may, or may not, be the correct one to tackle this topic. There may be different two aspects of semantics at least, one for choreography and other for web services. It was noted that the Web Service Description group are looking at resources in the context of semantics of messages.
NEW ACTION: Steve to send mail to the Semantics tag as to what he is looking for. Yaron and David said that we needed to work out ways of describing choreographies first and then worry about the semantic issue, which they regarded as being of second-order.
NEW ACTION: Steve to put Semantics on the issues list.
ACTION: Chairs, include ‘Burdett’ ML on the agenda when David is back and decide what to do with it. DONE
ACTION: TF owners, the owners of each task force to put together a task list for that task force, agree with task force members, and mail to the main group. - See standing items below
ACTION: Alistair (Barros) will develop a use case / scenario for this broadcast use case. ONGOING
ACTION: David Burdett to provide a design collaboration use case PENDING
ACTION: David Burdett action on verifying and reporting on the legal aspects of Burdett ML. ONGOING
ACTION: David reported that he should have a resolution by next week - cover next week. ONGOING
ACTION: Chairs to accept Attachmate offer, work out logistics – DONE
Attachmate have now responded and made a formal offer to the group
ACTION:Martin to propose text for call-back use case. ONGOING
ACTION: Martin to post a straw poll via email about having f2f in Australia in Dec. DONE
The straw poll has been held about having a face-to-face in December in Australia (Melbourne) and it came out with a majority in favour of this.
NEW ACTION: on Steve to contact Alistair Barros with a view to DSTC hosting a W3C WS-Choreography face-to-face meeting in Melbourne Australia in December 2003.
NEW ACTION: on Steve to publish first post August conference call – DONE
The next teleconference will be 2 September 2003 after the 29 July 2003 call.
Requirements document ongoing, but delayed as a lot of work to be done. Daniel has re-done a version of the spreadsheet and hopes to get out by the end of the day (USA time). The main document needs to be out by the end of the week, as several people, including Daniel, will be involved in Web Services Architecture work next week. The methodology for handling requirements including Access database etc. is now in place.
Daniel mentioned that there are no general requirements in the spreadsheet or Requirements document at the moment, but there will be as soon as he can type them in.
Monica and Mike have used the requirements spreadsheet to look at requirements and categories for helping in their evaluation of input languages in task force 2. Daniel was pleased this work had been of use already. Steve said he would look to the group next week to approve the Requirements document as a public draft even though it will certainly not be perfect by then.
Greg said he had added one new issue since the last conference call, and will now add the semantics issue noted earlier, otherwise nothing to report.
‘Input’ Languages: Mike (Champion) and Monica (Martin) have talked on the phone and exchanged e-mail within their group. They plan to use requirements / categories to produce an evaluation matrix which the group will fill in for the various input languages.
Semantics and Formalism: Frank has spoken with Jim, nothing concrete to report this week. Steve said that he understood that Nick would help with pi-calculus.
The presentation given at the last face-to-face and the specification reflect thinking in Commerce One earlier in the year. Need to follow rules as no one point of control. States get changed by exchange of messages. Now realise that the current Burdett ML does not do composition very well. David is offering this specification as a source of ideas for the group's early draft. David is also thinking about how to do composition. Ask what does it not do, and build on it to make it do all we want a WS-Choreography language to do. David would be happy to help if others want to use his proposal as a basis. David is checking the legal situation today but thinks it is OK with regard to RF terms, specification submitted to the mailing list and copyright. (It was noted that we could get around copyright, if necessary.)
It was agreed to evaluate Burdett ML against the requirements / categories matrix to see how good a fit it is and what the gaps are (and if the requirements are reasonable!)
NEW ACTION: David to produce a commentary on how Burdett ML meets (or not) the current requirements. Look at this again after the August break - 2nd September teleconference. Also David said he hoped to show how to do composition by the first September Teleconference.
It was noted that the group will need to iterate between the requirements and the draft language specification, and it was agreed continue to tackle this topic in e-mail.
NEW ACTION: on chairs to put on the agenda again for 2nd September.
There have been lots of email on composition and what the patterns are that we will deal with.
Hugo (W3C staff) has told Steve that there does not seem to be a common view in the W3C groups as to exactly what a message exchange pattern (MEP) is. Therefore we need to be precise as to what we mean by the term. Frank feels we do not need to concentrate on MEPs until later on. Others felt that we should support layering using MEP at one level as a building-block. It was noted that there has been a lot of discussion in the Web Service Description group on MEPs, but that they do not seem to be making much change to the specification at present.
It was agreed to raise an issue: MEP as a simple choreography.
Define MEP as a choreography then use (compose) this with others to form a higher-level choreography. Alternatively we could just view an MEP as a pattern that a Web Service will do.
A possible definition of an MEP might include binding to Web Services, whereas Choreography is above that and does not include an explicit binding except for a binding to MEPs. It was suggested that may be at this stage we needed to have some creative ambiguity in this area until WSDL 1.2 is fixed (which is likely to take at least six months or more).
This raises another issue:
ISSUE:our time lines are constrained by the Web Service description language progress.
Monica expressed concern about defining terms and the various kinds of composition.
It was agreed that the ‘atom’ we will build choreographies out of is a single message sent and received. Make the first level of MEP out of this, for example a reliable messaging MEP (or mini Choreography). This raised the question of whether an MEP was just the messages or messages plus the state machines at each end including timers, the function of each message, etc. MEPs in SOAP and WSDL focus on what is needed to get the Web Service to provide its function - not concerned with business level meanings/interactions. Steve said he felt you can apply choreography to network protocols, etc. - that is not exactly what this group is about. This group should be about choreography for the business level. The atom is a single message sent to or received from a Web Service.
WSDL MEPs do not have conditionality whereas the WS-Choreography language should support conditionality (in its ‘MEPs’). The WSDL group is beginning to look at the target resource as well, to make MEPs richer. This raised the obvious issue of the scope of WSD increasing upwards. If this group can provide tools and language for this area then it would take the pressure off the WSDL group to spread upwards. We need to decide on our lower bound and there is not consensus on precisely how to express this at present. Therefore it was agreed to continue the discussion on the mailing lists with the aim of reaching consensus soon.
Any other Business
As there was no other business the meeting was closed.
ACTION: Chairs, Oversee the organisation of the task forces. ONGOING
ACTION: Martin to track back through past minutes for issues and put into Bugzilla. ONGOING
ACTION: Alistair (Barros) will develop a use case / scenario for this broadcast use case. ONGOING
ACTION: David Burdett to provide a design collaboration use case PENDING
ACTION: David Burdett action on verifying and reporting on the legal aspects of Burdett ML. ONGOING
ACTION: David Burdett reported that he should have a resolution by next week - cover next week. ONGOING
ACTION: Martin to propose text for call-back use case. ONGOING
NEW ACTION: SRT to send mail to the Semantics tag as to what he is looking for to initiate the discussion on semantics in the WS-Choreography language.
NEW ACTION: SRT to put semantics on to the issues list.
NEW ACTION: SRT to contact Alastair Barros with a vew to DTSC hosting the W3C Choreography F2F meeting in Melbourne Australia in December 2003.
NEW ACTION: Chairs to put on the agenda for 2nd September the following item:
NEW ACTION: DB to produce a commentary on how Burdett ML meets (or not) the current requirements.
ISSUE: What do we mean by semantics of web services and what are they for?
ISSUE:our time lines are constrained by the Web Service description language progress.