Minutes of W3C WS ChoreographyWG conference call held on 21st October 2003,1pm PDT



Role Call



 Martin Chapman


Steve Ross-Talbot




W3C Staff Contacts


Yves Lafon




Jean-Jacques Dubray


Yaron Goland

BEA Systems

Anthony Fletcher

Choreology Ltd

Mayilraj Krishnan

Cisco Systems Inc

David Burdett

Commerce One

Yoko Seki

Hitachi, Ltd.

Assaf Arkin

Intalio Inc.

Abbie Barbir

Nortel Networks

Greg Ritzinger


Nickolas Kavantzas

Oracle Corporation

Kevin Liu


Ugo Corda

SeeBeyond Technology Corporation

Monica Martin

Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Carol McDonald

Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Dinesh Shahane

TIBCO Software


irc log at http://www.w3.org/2003/10/21-ws-chor-irc


Appointment of scribe:


Ugo Corda (SeeBeyond) scribed.


The following is a list of recent scribes (in order): Assaf Arkin, 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


Approve minutes

Minutes 14th October 2003


Minutes were approved         

Action item review




ACTION: SRT will formalized in e-mail the offer.

DONE - Next F2F confirmed for 17-19 December in Cambridge.


ACTION: Co-chairs try to provide clarity to the group and make sure clarity prevails to next meeting.

DONE - Only few comments on the Oracle proposal so far. The chairs ask for volunteers to be part of the editing group for the base line of a choreography language (see next Action)


NEW ACTION : The chairs are seeking editors for the main specification document. Volunteers should signal their availability to the chairs via email. Volunteers will be selected next week.


ACTION : chairs look at WSA issues process and recommend whether it should be adopted by this group. IN PROGRESS


ACTION: Steve to facilitate calling a Requirements / Use Case editors meeting.  

DONE – Meeting will take place 4 – 5 November, Brighton, UK





ACTION: Use Case proposers to highlight/extract any EAI specific aspects from their use cases.

DONE - Monica sent email.


ACTION: Chairs to reply to Marco requesting clarification of his use case.IN PROGRESS 


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 methodused at the F2F.  IN PROGRESS – to be taken into account at editors meetin in November.


ACTION: Daniel to look though document and see which requirements we captured so far regarding transactions.  NO PROGRESS


  ACTION: Tony to take a look at Oracle submission and see if it meets base requirements  IN PROGRESS

  Tony saw that it meets the requirements, but argues with the way it is currently done. Further discussions are required.


  ACTION: Nick to provide spreadsheet matching OracleML to requirements DONE - see Agenda Item below.




ACTION : SRT Brought semantics question to the TAG. On chairs coordination call, he asked about semantics for/of choreography. A new SemanticWeb Services Interest Group is being formed in about one month. Issue will be sent to that groupwhen it is formed.  NO PROGRESS


ACTION: Steve RT will send a one-page summary of his thoughts NO PROGRESS




ACTION : Tony to keep group updated on un/cefact. .

Tony: next meeting (techniques and methods group) will take place 8-12 December in Austria.

Yaron: is UMM a replacement for BPSS?

Tony: No, UMM is a UML module that represents a higher level of detail than BPSS


ACTION : chairs to explore with UN/CEFECT whether a liaison is of mutual interest.

IN PROGRESS (offline discussion between chairs)



5.    Standing tracking items (a section designed to ensure that longer running items are properly tracked)


Requirements – next steps (progress/review)

Awaiting the editors F2F in November.


Issue tracking (progress/review)

·          Major issues to report – None to report


·         Matching against requirements – Not addressed during this call


·         Matching against requirements – See next Agenda Item Action

Oracle Submission and requirements matching


The group reviewed the document Oracle-WSCDL-Req-Comparison.doc (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Oct/0029.html ). Only the items where Oracle compliance is different than BurdettML’s were discussed.


General observation from Yaron: The Oracle CDL is very difficult to read through, because of many terms not defined (or defined later in the document) and lack of explanations in many parts.



David: BurdettML does not assume any specific binding to WSDL at the abstract level.



No comments



No comments



Nick: need to understand consequences of propagation to external choreographies

Monica: error should also be available to external (i.e. non nested) choreographies

Tony: propagation beyond choreography language is not meaningful – external choreographies should not be affected.

Nick: do we need special protocol to communicate with external choreographies?

Steve: external choreographies might want to use compensation instead

JJ: Light level choreography does not need to change existing Web services. Higher level choreography might require new protocol. Choreography can define abstract protocol and then map it to a particular implementation.


NEW ACTION: Requirements editors to segment CR005 into a local exception handling case and a cross domain case.



Nick: it is partially met by Oracle CDL



No comments



Nick: it is partially met by Oracle CDL



Nick: it relates to 005 and 030



No comments



No comments



Dave: Choreography should not specify actual participants

Nick: Oracle takes the approach of using channel binding at runtime. More discussion is required



No comments



Nick: it relates to 003



Monica: does hierarchy mean nested?



Nick: this is met by the reaction mechanism - Within a reaction group, only one reaction can be active.



No comments






WS-BPEL – any major issues being reported? – Nothing to report


BPSS – any developmentson TC?

Monica: New BPSS TC had its first meeting last Monday.




None. Meeting adjourned.


Summary of New Actions


ACTION : The chairs are seeking editors for the main specification document. Volunteers should signal their availability to the chairs via email. Volunteers will be selected next week.

ACTION: Requirements editors to segment CR005 into a local exception handling case and a cross domain case.