|
Chairs |
| ||
|
Oracle | |||
|
Enigmatec | |||
|
W3C Staff Contacts
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
Name |
Company |
|
BEA Systems | |
|
Choreology Ltd | |
|
Commerce One | |
|
Intalio Inc. | |
|
National Computerization Agency | |
|
Nortel Networks | |
|
Novell | |
|
Oracle Corporation | |
|
SAP AG | |
|
SeeBeyond Technology Corporation | |
|
Software AG | |
|
Sun Microsystems, Inc. | |
|
W. W. Grainger, Inc. | |
|
W. W. Grainger, Inc. | |
|
SAP AG | |
|
Oracle Corporation | |
|
Cisco Systems Inc |
Monica Martin volunteered to scribe for the meeting.
The following is a list of recent scribes (in order): Monica Martin, Carol McDonald, Nick Kavantzas, Tony Fletcher, Mayilraj Krishnan, Francis McCabe, Jeff Mischkinsky, David Burdett ,John Dart, Monica Martin, Tony, Fletcher, Jim Hendler, 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
F2F minutes approval http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2003Oct/0000.html
Issue about contributions raised
Approve F2F Minutes: No issues raised. Approved.
Approve 30 Sept Minutes: Approved.
Actions from previous meeting marked with *
Organisational
ACTION : chairs look at WSA issues process and recommend whether it should be adopted by this group. recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/30-ws-chor-irc#T20-22-01 IN PROGRESS
ACTION: Steve to facilitate calling a Requirements / Use Case editors meeting. IN PROGRESS
Editor's meeting hosted in London by Enigmatic (Brighton also potential).
Daniel Austin, Abbie Barbir, Martin Chapman, and Ed Peters [possible] (Yaron Goland has a conflict but may attend) will attend. Goal is to take all action points raised at the F2F and to apply to working document. Publish consensus document that team can agree upon. SAP (Ivana) may attend; will advise. If the meeting is held in London, Tony Fletcher could call in.
Usecases/requirements
ACTION: Use Case proposers to highlight/extract any EAI specific aspects from their use cases. IN PROGRESS
Chapman: If there is no interest, drop issue.
Chapman: Suggestion to ask for inputs prior to Nov editor's meeting; for UC-004, UC-005, I have inputs. Will provide this week.
Chapman: Need prior to editor's meeting.
Mischkinsky: How do we know what is proposed meets with the team's approval. Inputs are needed one week prior to editor's meeting in early November. Raises bar on items being put in requirements' documents.
Austin: Feels this is unworkable for the editors' team.
Mischkinsky: Gather what the group wants to do.
Austin: Group consensus for publishing.
Mischkinsky: Don't put everything in a document.
Chapman: Finish actions and readdress this issue (of how things make it into the requirements document).
Steve RT agrees. (see below)
ACTION: Chairs to reply to Marco requesting clarification of his use case recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/30-ws-chor-irc#T20-50-10 IN PROGRESS
ACTION : chairs put tony's requirements on agenda on next week
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/30-ws-chor-irc#T21-08-17 DONE (see agenda)
ACTION : David Burdett to provide a design collaboration use case. DROPPED
ACTION: Steve: Will put all the comments on draft requirements above into the requirements spreadsheet and send out. NO PROGRESS - Awaiting latest spreadsheet from Daniel Austin..
ACTION: Editors of the requirements are directed to look at the issues list and filter each issue in a similar way to the filtering method used at the F2F. IN PROGRESS Ð See editors F2F
ACTION: Requirements editors to consider an EAI use case and think about within and across firewalls. DELETED Ð duplicate of EAI action above.
BurdettML
ACTION: Dave will call a meeting, to discuss how to take the two CDL contributions and come up with a baseline document and match it with the revised requirements document. DEFERRED (see later in minutes)
ACTION : DB to produce a commentary on how Burdett ML meets (or not) the current requirements. DONE BurdettML_Requirements_Comparison.pdf
Issues
ACTION : SRT Brought semantics question to the TAG. On chairs coordination call, he asked about semantics for/of choreography. A new Semantic Web Services Interest Group is being formed in about one month. Issue will be sent to that group when it is formed.
Steve RT: Semantics - no progress - contact interest group - report next week by Steve RT
Mischkinsky: What does this entail?
Steve RT: How community dealing with semantics as it relates to choreography and identify bi-directional requirements if applicable.
Burdett: Can you write a short summary with his suggestions?
NEW ACTION: Steve RT will send a one-page summary of his thoughts.
Liason activities
ACTION : Tony to keep group updated on un/cefact recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/30-ws-chor-irc#T20-32-44
NEW ACTION: Tony Fletcher will mail to list for new site: www.unbcf.org/
Fletcher: BCF - This is a framework. TMG will meet in Austria in second week of 8-15 December.
ACTION : chairs to explore with UN/CEFECT whether a liaison is of mutual interest recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/30-ws-chor-irc#T20-33-04 IN PROGRESS (offline discussion between chairs)
DEFERRED ACTION DISCUSSION
Steve RT: Burdett have offline meeting on baseline document. Issue has been raised.
Mischkinsky: Private meeting on an issues list is unusual.
Burdett: Need to discuss.
Austin: Agrees.
Burdett: Two potential submissions which have not been accepted - CommerceOne and Oracle. Make as much progress with something reasonable. Group then can review. Quickest way to make progress. Keep group small initially to fix problems.
Mischkinsky: Inappropriate for group.
Austin: Agrees.
Austin: W3C exits to get people to agree and approve of these things; small groups of representative is questionable.
Burdett: Think of alternatives.
Mischkinsky: Group is open to accept or not accept submissions.
Goland: Unfortunate this was discussed within the working group. Team get together on their own is up to them. That group can decide whether or not to accept, then evaluate. Goland: Nothing to debate without a submission.
Austin: Will wait for the submission.
Liu: Understand Oracle was working on submissions, as does CommerceOne.
Mischkinsky: Not quite accurate that Oracle is working on further submissions.
Liu: Are you withdrawing initial submissions?
Goland: Inappropriate to discuss meeting that has not happened.
Burdett: Leave his initial submission as is.
Burdett: Talk about a specification to base work on.
Liu: Agrees with Monica MartinÕs comments. We need to work on initial submissions to create a working document.
Liu: CommerceOne and Oracle may submit additional documents.
Mischkinsky: Ifs in these statesments. Are we deciding on a joint proposal is speculation.
Mischkinsky: Someone make a motion to adopt a base document.
Mischkinsky: This type plan historically does not work.
Burdett: Who's going to take the next step?
Mischkinsky: Meta plans waste time. Can't commit people to future actions.
Steve RT: Action in the minutes is badly worded. We failed to spot this and understand this fully. Burdett did what the action asked for.
Steve RT: Rewrite action?
Liu: With another proposal, members have a right to know about it.
Steve RT: Two contributions have been made; neither have been accepted.
Steve RT: How do the two contributions match up - Burdett comes back to group to show how to pull these two contributions together.
Mischkinsky: Actually nick should have an action to match the oracle proposal to the reqs
Monica: If this results in further contirbution great.
Mischkinsky: +1
Steve RT: Propose two actions - CommerceOne and Oracle should separately match the two contributions to the requirements document.
Martin (Chapman or Monica): Do we have contributions?
Steve RT: Yes we do.
Steve RT: Agreement to invite the contributions into the process.
Chapman: david's match to requirements is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Oct/att-0009/BurdettML_Requirements_Comparison.pdf
Liu: Two contributions can be withdraw, per Steve RT. If there is a withdrawal, what happens if we use the work in that submission?
Steve RT: Need W3C clarification.
Lafon: Contribution has been made by the group. If accepted, it is under W3C IPR policy.
Austin: WSCI is also a contribution.
Steve RT: Withdraw his comments that withdrawals can occur.
Steve RT: Need Oracle assessment similar to Burdett.
Chapman: Verified Oracle submission was accepted.
Fletcher: With contributions, we have a decision to make. What happens with third contribution and what is its relationship to the other two?
Fletcher: A subgroup could take two contributions and create a baseline document or wait for this group's output?
Chapman: We need to move on as we are time constrained.
Austin: A third alternative: the two submitters could go forth and come back with a combined, optimized submission, which may or may not end up in the 'final' language
Steve RT: Impossible to do without the guidance from the submitters.
Mischkinsky: Finish the requirements, use cases
Goland: +1!!!!!
Martin: What would you propose we do in the interim?
Chapman: the use cases need a lot of work
Steve RT: Need comments on the submissions.
Steve RT: Give more time to Oracle submission for group consideration.
Mischkinsky: Finish requirements documents and use cases.
Steve RT: Need spreadsheet from Nick Kavantzas. Team to ask hard questions.
NEW ACTION: Nick to provide spreadsheet matching OracleML to requirements
Steve RT: Will send his private comments to the group.
Back to process issue that Jeffm Raised under Usecases/Requirements
Mischkinsky: Group must agree to any inclusion in documents.
Austin: Agrees.
Steve RT: Group seems to agree with this.
Chapman: Tony's rewritten requirement at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2003Oct/att-0005/20030929_Contribution_to_W3C_WS_Chor_on_Transaction_Reqs.doc
Fletcher: Transaction requirements; document sent ot the groups. Need assurance of the outcome (mutual assurance for an economic commitment).
Fletcher: Use transactions for all the use cases.
Burdett: Unit of work
Burdett: If this message is received, that marks the start/end of a transaction.
Fletcher: Put things in that are appropriate for the choreography language.
Chapman: What is the definition of transaction?
Fletcher: He has a definition. Action to send a definition to the list.
Burdett: Choreography could be one or more transactions.
Fletcher: Typically a choreography is more than one transaction.
Chapman: Need to have clarity on what is the difference with choreography and transaction.
Chapman: what is the diff between a choreograhy and a transaction
Steve RT: Doesn't have a clear view - ACID or LRT.
Fletcher: Will provide a good definition.
NEW ACTION: Tony Fletcher will provide a good definition of transaction
Fletcher: Underneath there would be WS-T, WS-TXM, BTP below the choreography. At the choreography level, they are achieving the same thing.
Chapman: What is the abstraction level needed in the choreography language?
Steve RT: With a transactional boundary, what can I do that I could not have done before.
Fletcher: Conclusion to the interaction.
Fletcher: Knows what the outcome is.
Goland: Is this explicit or outside of choreography?
Chapman: In one submission, equates choreography and transaction boundaries.
Austin: Look at Furniss/Austin ideas brought up in the first meeting related to this issue.
Chapman: Discuss in further detail next week.
NEW ACTION: This agenda item to be placed back on the agenda for next week assuming a succinct definition of transaction (see action above).
Steve RT: Any other business?
Chapman: Don't forget pre-registration for Australia? Poll will be open until 13 October 2003.