Minutes of W3C WS Choreography WG conference call held on 6th
January 2004,1pm PDT
Agenda:
Agenda 20040106.htm
RoleCall
Attendees:
Regrets
Appointment of scribe:
Ravi Byakod from Intalio volunteered to scribe.
The following is a list of recent scribes(inorder): Martin
Chapman, Steve Ross-Talbot, Monica Martin, Nick Kavantzas, Ed
Peters, Anthony Fletcher, Jeff Michkinsky, Dinesh Shahane,
Greg Ritzinger, Ed Peters, David Burdett, Ivana Trickovic, Ugo
Corda, Assaf Arkin, MonicaMartin, Carol McDonald, NickKavantzas,
Tony Fletcher, MayilrajKrishnan, Francis McCabe, Jeff
Mischkinsky,David Burdett ,John Dart, Monica Martin,Tony, Fletcher,
Jim Hendler, Kevin Liu, TonyFletcher, Jon Dart, David Burdett,Ed
Peters, Greg Ritzinger, Monica Martin, LenGreski, Jean-Jacques
Dubray,Monica Martin, Mayilraj Krishnan, FrancisMcCabe, Michael
Champion, AbbieBarbir, David Burdett, Jon Dart, Carol
McDonald,Yaron Goland, Leonard Greski,Ed Peters, Greg Ritzinger,
Daniel Austin, PeterFurniss, Jim Hendler
Approve minutes
Minutes 9th December 2003
Minutes were approved subject to date change in title of
minutes.
Action item review
NO GENERAL ACTION ITEMS TO REVIEW
Steve: Issues process is dogging us for sometime, we need to get
a handle on it today.
5. Standing tracking items (a section designed to ensure that longer running items are properly tracked)
Requirements – outstanding items
ACTION:Daniel to look though document and see
whichrequirements we captured so far regarding transactions.
(NO PROGRESS,1021, 1028, 1111, 1118, 1125, 1202, CLOSED)
Steve: Issue of transactions has no progress YET - if Daniel
does not turn up in the next meeting - chair to strike it OFF from
the list.
Martin: the issue has been CLOSED
Monica: Daniel has been endorsed as the SUN
representative
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. To be taken into account at
editors meeting in November. ( IN PROGRESS, 1021, 1028,1111,
1118, 1125, 1202, 1209,0106)
Requirements doc feedback - sent to named people - had decided
to tackle the edits at the F2F - Abbie has issued the edited doc to
the editors only
NEW ACTION: Requirements Editors – Review
requirements doc by Jan 13th including issues list
review against document. (0106)
Requirements Document Feedback
We plan to tackle this next call (13th January).
Issue tracking (progress/review)
Steve: requirements doc has taken a long time to get to the
current stage and in terms of planning it will take 2 meetings to
do requirements doc and issues list. Doing either one individually
will take one meeting each.
Martin: How to tackle issues? - if it has an easy solution
then tackle it, if not shove them back to the
submitter.
Martin: With respect to requirements document the editors should
go thru the issue list and if they matter to requirements - tackle
them and others stay outstanding - If no one wants to champion/own
the issue then drop it - at the chairs discretion.
With respect to requirements doc - editors go thru the issues
present the document back to members and request for moving forward
to publication - Abbie to send via email the corrected
document.
Steve/Martin - let us see some email traffic to manage the
process to get the requirements doc reviewed quickly and published
- if we cannot make it by 13th (which is tight) then we inform the
members as such.
ACTION: Need to go thru the issues DB next time –
Martin (0106)
ACTION: With respect to requirements doc - Abbie
to send via email the corrected document as soon as available.
(0106)
ACTION: Steve/Martin - let us see some email traffic to
manage the process to get the requirements doc reviewed quickly and
published - if we cannot make it by 13th (which is tight) then we
inform the members as such. (0106)
Specification Editors report
Plan after the F2F is to tackle the specification in whatever
state it is in - present that to members - ideally by 20th Jan -
may slip
David: no further work being done as he was playing phone tag
with Nick to decide what to do next, cannot tell anything until he
gets back in touch Nick
ACTION: Task Nick/David to come up with the what
to do next by 27th (0106)
ACTION: David to redo Visio diagrams in UML (action from
F2F) (0106)
6. Face to face report
Martin gave a quick over view on f2f:
- 1/2 meeting on req doc and 1/2 on spec doc
- requirements doc - reviewed page by page and ran out of time to
go over use cases
- agreed - turn all use cases into good docs and examples and
then publish it
- spec - nick w/ David presented the metamodel over IRC
- some observers were in the mtg many eminent people known in
pi-calculus present (Milner, Honda, Yoshida)
- took the group to pantomime show.
7. Liaison
Steve: Possibly have a closer liaison with ws-caf . Further work
to be done to understand how this should happen and benefits. Will
pick this up later.
8. Hot topics
Transactions contribution from Choreology. Word Document
Steve: Tony could you frame this around why choreology sent this
in and why is it important?
Tony: Basically put out some reqs on transactions some time ago
and are included in this doc.
It is a biz decision as to what is included in a Transaction
(tx) and not, what a tx spans - generally do small little steps
each being a tx on its own, or a group of steps in one
tx.
I have tried to show here a tx begins and end and the workings
of it the next bit explains the tx mapping
Questions:
David: definitely took Tony's idea when they were doing the
model - identified the need for taking action after a tx completion
successfully.
We need to have groups of messages in diff choreographies to be
put into one transaction
Tony - the messages being put into a single tx are not arbitrary
- it is the tool which will identify the proper msgs and if you
went to a traditional buyer/supplier choreography - I want a tx
between the buyer and distributor - propagated to the supplier -
this is one tx with 3 parties. we could do this a 2 choreographies
which effectively do individual txs
This discussion went into more technical discussion - someone
pointed out that it was a bananas discussion
Steve: Tony how do you want to play this one? as some activity
has taken place since you sent this document
Tony: Thanks for the feedback and if anyone has any discussions
or any conversations - please make sure that people are happy with
what I am trying to do - the concepts - if not : send an email to
me or David
This is an addition to the actual syntax of the language and any
comments are welcome. I quite did not understand the model and if
the next version is in UML I will try and see how my contribution
can be modeled into it.
Steve: ok that is how we will leave it for now and see how it
goes in the next 3-4 weeks
NEW ACTION: Steve - bananas calculus to be written up by
the end of the month (figure out to get it written up).
(0106)
Choreography & orchestration must be defined in context first, last
Steve: Next hot topic is choreography and orchestrations must be
defined in context .
Monica: we briefly touched on it I think at the F2F - no one has
notes.
ACTION: Chairs to re-introduce the topic of choreography
and orchestration at the next conf call
(0106)
Intermediaries first, last (DONE AT F2F)
9. AOB.
Monica: SUN will be happy to sponsor the meeting after the
France's one - people will have to have sign an NDA (probably
generic) to have internet access a corporate policy - Steve and
Martin to figure that out
Steve: W3C decided NOT to join WSI . It was reported that Martin
and Steve felt that there was certainly an uneasy feeling that the
chair and members were not consulted in deciding NOT to join the
WSI at a previous W3C Web Services Coordination conference
call.
One of the reasons is - WSI has a diff set of IP
rules
Steve was requested to email to all chairs of Web Services
activities requesting them to ping all the members as to what they
want out of the liaison with WSI - what is the
benefit?
Steve: If everyone on this call wants it - we can take it back
to the coordination group. The focus should be "What can we
achieve individually, corporate wise as a group that we cannot do
now by this liaison with WSI". I need the responses by the next
coordination call which is on the 20th.
Monica: We could provide relevant use cases that could provide
input to WS-I requirements to help them understand what profiles
may be needed in the future or input into existing or future
profile development already in work.
Meeting Closed
NEW ACTIONS SUMMARY
ACTION: Steve: - issues list - we will come back at the
next meeting for the issues in the Bugzilla.
ACTION: Requirements Editors – Review requirements
doc by Jan 13th including issues list review against
document.
ACTION: Need to go thru the issues DB next time -
Martin
ACTION: With respect to requirements doc - Abbie
to send via email the corrected document as soon as
available.
ACTION: Steve/Martin - let us see some email traffic to
manage the process to get the requirements doc reviewed quickly and
published - if we cannot make it by 13th (which is tight) then we
inform the members as such.
ACTION: Task Nick/David to come up with the what
to do next by 27th
ACTION: David to redo Visio diagrams in UML (action from
F2F).
ACTION: Steve - bananas calculus to be written up by the
end of the month (figure out to get it written up)
ACTION: Chairs to re-introduce the topic of choreography
and orchestration at the next conf call