Minutes WS Choreography WG conference call 26th October 2004

Dates Goals and Milestones and Homework
        ** 1 ** Next F2F is at Oracle HQ on 17th, 18th and 19th November
        ** 2 ** Only 3 conference calls before the next F2F
        ** 3 ** By the next F2F we only want technical issues related to Last Call addressed
        ** 4 ** Please review proposals on Fault Handling and WSDL in the week before the next F2F

IRC log is at http://www.w3.org/2004/10/26-ws-chor-irc

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2004Oct/0017.html

1. Role Call
		Steve, Martin
	Role Call:
		Yves Lafon, Charlton Barreto, Peter Furniss, Tony Fletcher, Bob Haugen, Monica Martin, Nick Kavantzas, Greg Ritzinger, Abbie Barbir

2. Confirm scribe
	Gary Brown was appointed scribe for the call

	The following is a recent list of scribes:
	Charlton Barreto, Anthony Fletcher, Yves Lafon, Jeff Mischkinsky, Nick Kavantzas, Abbie XYZ, Steve Ross-Talbot,
	David Burdett, Monica Martin, Jeff Mischkinsky, Charlton Barreto, Anthony Fletcher, Greg Ritzinger, Nickolas Kavantzas,
	David Burdett

3. Approve minutes
	Minutes from 19th are approved

4. Action item review
ACTION 1: Take the TWIST example we're working on, add part of the flow what can go wrong, see what happens when things go wrong.
IN PROGRESS. Choreology working on it too.

ACTION 2: Chairs to sort out examples work.

ACTION 3: on Martin to propose text on clocks (Issue 885).

ACTION 4: on the chairs to discuss part 2 of the specification

ACTION 5: Bob/Choreology to come back with a definitive proposal with editing instructions on PROPOSAL ONE

ACTION 6: above question (is finalizer role bound?) needs to be answered in a proposal on PROPOSAL FOUR

ACTION 7: Martin to produce UML model of WS-CDL for the editors to include in spec.
Martin: indicates that the model cannot be done until the language is stable.  Questions whether should be for last call document
Steve: suggests revisiting at end of November

ACTION 8: Monica to check if 687 has been resolved in latest draft.
Monica answered on 12th October - DONE

ACTION 9:  send Bugzilla Issue 870 packaged up to Nobuko/Honda see if they can help.  Steve to do.

ACTION 10: Steve to tidy up proposal on locally defined variable (issue 691) and send  (including Schema changes) to the editors.

ACTION 11:  Greg to re-assign issue 913 to primer and / or Part 2

ACTION 12: Charlton to update the pdf and send it to the editors with the function and variable name changes.

ACTION 13: Place distributed choice on next week's conf call agenda.
Distributed choice placed on the agenda therefore DONE

5. Planning (added to agenda)
There are only two conf calls before next f2f
Next conf call we don't want to have any more proposals. only if urgent proposal with 2/3 majority
Bob: Choreology proposals will be posted this Saturday
Proposal on quality of service and bindings to be submitted
Monica to provide response to issue 683 by next week

6. Issues resolution and proposals
(i) Fault Handling - merging of two proposals

Peter: Faults being handled as interactions was GB's proposal.
Peter: Have you thought of the other way around?
Gary: Not really.
Nick: Problem with treating faults as something that does not cause exceptions. Faults in WSDL should be xlated into exceptions into the target language. If a fault then something exceptional is happening.
Gary: Suggests that BPEL does/can be used to do it this way (interacts and choice as opposed to exceptions)
Nick: Not correct. It is just a sugar on the syntax.
Steve: When is a fault a fault and when is a fault not a fault wrt a CDL. It is clear in a WSDL file what a fault is. But it is less clear that this should propagate into a CDL.
BobH: in CDL, doesn't triggering the exception block have consequences, e.g. disabling finalizers?
Martin: We can do this with the language today and it is just syntactic style.
Scribe Note: Gary said something but I couldn't hear it
BobH:once you're in the exception block, how can you recover and continue?
Gary: An exception block is not the same syntactically as an interact and choice approach because of the consequences of exceptions (see Bob's comments above)
Martin: So would a half way house be to note an fault and decide (or not) to raise it?
Gary: Yes that would be a good half way house.
Nick: Describes proposal with ExceptionInformationType.
Martin: How do we resolve this?
Peter: Doesn't it mean that you either support the idea that a WSDL fault maps to an exception or it doesn't?
BobH: reverse question:  can an ExceptionInformationType represent somethign that is not a wsdl fault?
Peter: says that Nick's proposal says that it could map to a WSDL fault type
BobH: but could also map to a normal message?
Nick: answer is yes, can point to a simple XSD element

Steve: Lets move to a straw poll. Please vote if you wish to have the option if treating WSDL fault message at end points as something other than an exception in WS-CDL
Steve: Let voting commence:
gritzinger: +1
charlton: +1
Steve: +1
Monica: +1
Gary: +1
Abbie: +1

Steve: Six voted to allow WSDl faults to be treated as things other than exceptions in CDL

Steve: Now vote if you wish WSDL fault messages always to be treated as exceptions in WS-CDL
Steve: Let voting commence:
nick: +1
Peter: +1
Martin: +1 
BobH: +1
Abbie: +1
Steve: Five vote for WSDl faults only mapping to exceptions in CDL

Nick: My proposal can accomodate both views and can change accordingly.
Martin: suggest all look at Nick's proposal to see how can be changed to accomodate the ability for WSDL faults to not throw an exception and adopt Nick's as base line and Gary's as guide for ammendment. Gary to do

NEW ACTION: Gary to see if he can put together a modified Nick proposal to include the relaxed fault handling

Gary: asked how hard would it be to add local scopes (inline choreographies) into CDL
Peter: is the compromise (before we got to inline etc) : wsdl fault is always an exceptionType but can have causeException=false in the interaction that deals with it
Nick and Gary to discuss inline issue before next weeks call
BobH: or is it that wsdl fault does not need to map to exceptionType?

(ii) WSDL support:
Steve: does anyone wish to object to the proposal?

(iii) Remove the initiate flag on the Interation
Proposal for removing the initiate flag has been removed based on clarification from Nick.

Nick: Provided some new text for Choreography lifeline section, wants to vote on it
	Proposal is at the end of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2004Oct/0049.html
Steve: proposal is not on the agenda, so doesn't want to vote on it
Martin: suggests put on agenda for next week

NEW ACTION: Nick's proposal to be on the agenda next week

(iv) Distributed choice (added to agenda):
Peter: need for clarification 
Steve: priority mechanism will not be submitted for this version
Martin: suggests this issue should be closed
Martin: Nick's example should be added to Part 2 or Primer
Distributed choice ISSUE now CLOSED

7. Clarifications
        (i) Clarification on 'relationship' element of choreography

        (ii) No explanation of "action" and "new" in channel type defns

NEW ACTION: Editor's look at clarification items in the agenda in preparation for next week's call

8. AOB


NEW ACTION: Gary to see if he can put together a modified Nick proposal to include the relaxed fault handling
NEW ACTION: Nick's proposal to be on the agenda next week
NEW ACTION: Editor's look at clarification items in the agenda in preparation for next week's call