W3C WS Choreography WG conference call


9th March 2004



Role Call



 Martin Chapman


Steve Ross-Talbot



W3C Staff Contacts


Carine Bournez


Yves Lafon




David Burdett

Commerce One

Abbie Barbir

Nortel Networks

Greg Ritzinger


Nickolas Kavantzas

Oracle Corporation

Kevin Liu


Ugo Corda

SeeBeyond Technology Corporation

Jeff Mischkinsky

Oracle Corporation


Confirm scribe


Kevin Liu volunteered to scribe.


The following is a listof recent scribes (in order): Kevin Liu, Jeff Mischkinsky, Monica Martin, Nick Kavantzas, Greg Ritzinger, David Burdett, Tony Fletcher, Monica Martin, Ugo Corda, Mayilraj Krishnan, Ravi Byakod , 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, 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, TonyFletcher, Jon Dart, DavidBurdett,Ed Peters, Greg Ritzinger, Monica Martin, Len Greski, Jean-JacquesDubray,Monica Martin, Mayilraj Krishnan, Francis McCabe, Michael Champion,AbbieBarbir, David Burdett, Jon Dart, Carol McDonald,Yaron Goland, Leon Greski,Ed Peters, Greg Ritzinger, Daniel Austin, PeterFurniss, Jim Hendler


Approve minutes

     Face 2 Face Minutes
Steve asked if any objection to approval F2F minutes. No objection. Minutes approved.
David noted that he raised a discussion point. Steve noted David’s comment.

Action item review

ACTION: SRT and MM will provide further detail on the “banana-calculus” discussions in order to record this exception/errors discussion properly.  (0127, 0203, 0210, 0217, 0301) DONE.

ACTION: SRT will update bugzilla entries to reflect exceptions/error discussion. (0127, 0203, 0210, 0217, 0301, 0309) NO PROGRESS.

ACTION: Nick to define the features required of an intermediate end-point language (0113, 0120, 0127, 0203, 0210, 0217, 0301, 0309) CLOSED.

Nick: let's schedule an agenda item in a call and talk about it.

Martin: need a to-do-list

Nick: we don't know what to do

Steve: close this action and add a new action to chairs

NEW ACTION: The chair will schedule an agenda item in a con call to discuss intermediate end-point language.

David: what's the intermediate end-point language for.

Nick and Martin give a different explanation. David indicated that he got the sense that we need to clarify with the term first.

Steve: it sounds like a useful concept to discuss.

ACTION: Chairs to look into a far east meeting in sep/oct (0113, 0120, 0127, 0203, 0210, 0217, 0301, 0309) IN PROGRESS.

Steve: been a lot of changes at the F2F. we need to accelarate the F2F meetings. Now looking for a F2F in May and in July.

Issue is number of members who can attend a Far East F2F. It might be counter-productive to arrange a meeting there. The chairs currently are not looking into that.

Yves: has asked a potential host. if they say yes and we say no, it would be diffcult for us to ask for any future hosting.

Steve: Will not make a decision today. will do it next week. 

Steve: Oracle has offerred to host May F2F in CA.

Steve: Looking for hosts in July. Possbile host in Lucklowman(please correct the spelling?) of Scotland. Need a decision next week.

Nick: if it doesn't work. is it still work in Cambridge?

Jeff: have to remind us that we are doing this for business reason, not just for a wonderful place.

Steve: we need a decision next week.

Nick: timeframe of the one after July?

Steve: thinking late August or early Sept.

ACTION: Chairs to organise an issues conference call in which the regular conf call is used with members to look at the issue in bugzilla  (0113, 0120, 0127, 0203, 0210, 0217, 0301, 0309) NO PROGRESS.

Martin: all requirement related issues are close in Bugzilla. if anybody think differently, they need to reopen an issue.


ACTION: Chairs  to raise a topic of Binding, Context etc. (0113, 0120, 0127, 0203, 0210, 0217, 0301, 0309) IN PROGRESS.

ACTION: Chairs to send Marco the requirements document (once approved) and ask if his requirements are met. (0301, 0309) NO PROGRESS – Awaiting publication of ReqDoc.

ACTION: req editors to send requirements doc to yves - DONE

ACTION: yves to publish requirements doc – DONE

Yves indicated it will be done before end of this week

ACTION: Yves update the choreo web page to reflect the correct status of model overview as WD, which was done at last f2f in December i.e. it should be Published (0301, 0309) IN PROGRESS

ACTION: editors to produce html of doc: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Mar/att-0002/cdl_v1_editors.pdf (0301, 0309) IN PROGRESS

ACTION: yves publish the (html) WD of model overview. (0301) AMENDED (See below)

AMENDED ACTION Yves to publish the html of WD of CDL. (0309) IN PROGRESS.

ACTION: yves add link to current editor's draft of CDL (will point to the WD for the moment). (0301, 0309) IN PROGRESS

ACTION: SRT send email to public list reminding people how to handle comments and issues on the docs. (0309) IN PROGRESS

ACTION: kevin cast his comments in the form of issues and send to commenst list (public-ws-chor-comments@w3.org) (0301, 0309) IN PROGRESS

ACTION: yves put reference to issues email address on public choreo page. (0301, 0309) IN PROGRESS

NEW ACTION: Yves will put a reference to the Bugzilla issue list in the public page

ACTION: chairs -- schedule "tying the bow" on state alignment on next conf call (0301) DONE.

ACTION: chairs schedule tx boundaries discussion on "a conf call coming to your neighborhood soon" so that the issue can be closed, on way or another CLOSED

Steve: Tony is not on the call. Not sure if this is something we want to continue.

Martin: how collaboration

Steve: propose to close this action with a note: this needs to be re-raised as an issue against the CDL  document.

ACTION: chairs schedule coord protocol issue (0301, 0309) IN PROGRESS

ACTION:greg to code up use case (from req doc) in CDL (0301, 0309) IN PROGRESS


Organisation issues (Patent stuff)

Yves: W3c new patent policy... Anybody has a patent claim related to the spec, needs to disclose it. we are close the W3C patent policy, don't think we need to be re-chartered
Martin: there is a bottom line?
Yves: don't know how long the transition will take. 
Jeff: until you are re-chartered, you don't have to do anything
Yves: right
Martin: members need to be familiar with the new patent policy.
Yves: any spec related patent has to be disclosed 90 days before the release of the spec(scribe not sure which draft stage)

Changing focus of group

Martin: had many chats with Steves. get valuable feedbacks from members in F2F. One of the main thing is that we have wonderful discussions on issues, but slow to reach closure. Officially we have only one year in our charter, we need to move forward.  going forward, we need to be less focusing on general discussions, but be more concrete on specification related issues. 
Kevin: sounds very reasonable.
Steve: completely agree with Martin. Two great things happened this week. first, I went to JP Morgen, got good comments from one of their distinguished engineer on the spec. (WSDL is OK. Chor stuff is really good). secondly, talked to Bijan about semantic web. Bijan is impressed by the progress we are making and the importance of the issues we are resolving.


State alignment 
 As the main plaintive on State alignment (SRT) I wish to close the issue on the basis that state alignment is an optional feature of a choreography and not a mandatory feature that has to be present in all choreography description. On this basis I remove any objections and/or concerns that I have had.
Steve: As the main plaintive on State alignment (SRT) I wish to close the issue on the basis that state alignment is an optional feature of a choreography and not a mandatory feature that has to be present in all choreography description. On this basis I remove any objections and/or concerns that I have had.
Martin: make it closed on the issue list
Steve: move to close this issue. No objection heard
Banana calculus
Steve: Monica and I wrote it up.
Martin: this is a nice example of concrete contribution
Steve: Monica focused on business perspective. I more focused on how it can be speced, say using pi caculus. 
Steve: recap the key ideas of the document (availabel from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2004Mar/0005.html)
Steve: business consideration is important. You may need to know when time out happen, and alternative paths. so collaboration group may needed be marked.  
Steve: monica talked about scenarios and drive from scenarios.
Steve: A few technical considerations. From a technical point of view modeling time in a consistent manner is easy to say and much harder to do. However the process that the time relates to are generally in one location and so their notion of a timeout, so when to start the clock, is from their perspective. 
The other issue is how to model the sends/receives as interacts. Since an interact collapses the notion of send/receive into one conceptual entity we need to be able to do the same thing but with an interact. This is really a question for the spec editors. 
David: each participant observes what's going on?
Steve: yes
David: so it's from the point of view of each participant.  In CDL, you need to explicitly say that one interaction can not be followed by a 
Steve: another point. is this approach actually OK in terms what you observe? I can code it in Pi, but not sure how to write it up in CDL. should we continue this issue?
Nick: current CDL has a "time to performance". Will go back to the document and look into it.
NEW ACTION: Steve to rewrite the banana calculus examples in CDL
Nick: CDL looks at a global model. An interact is a composition of send and receive. To decompose an interaction, you need to????
Steve: now propagation
David: what's propagation?
Steve: monica may means two things: 1. within CDL; 2. to the participants
more discussion between David and steve about the definition of propagation
Steve: CDL informs its participants what's permissible or not at any point. CDL doesn't send messages, but it informs participants 
Nick: we need to spend more time on this issue. what you proposed may work, but not in our case. biggest problem: if you start an  interact and define a time out. if you are doing some work in other end point, when the time out expires, what you do? what cause the other participant to invoke his errror handling? 
Steve: yes, we need a deeper discussion
Martin: analogy of propagation in programming language is about how to handle error in a hiearchy. 
David: we may not need it at this point of time.
Steve: let's take it to the mail list.
David: please do it in the pulic list.
Jeff: we should not do it just in the member list


Nothing reported


NEW ACTION: The chair will schedule an agenda item in a con call to discuss intermediate end-point language
NEW ACTION: Yves will put a reference to the Bugzilla issue list in the public page
NEW ACTION: Steve to rewrite the banana calculus examples in CDL