Minutes WS Choreography WG conference call 24 May 2005
See also IRC log: http://www.w3.org/2005/05/24-ws-chor-irc
Roll Call:
-------------
Steve Ross-Talbot (Co-Chair), Abbie Barbir
Gary Brown , Greg Ritzinger, Anthony Fletcher,
Martin Chapman (Co-Chair), Nickolas Kavantzas,
Monica Martin, Charlton Barreto, Yves Lafon (W3C staff)
Scribe:
----------
Nick agreed to scribe.
Agenda:
-----------
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005May/att-0059/Agenda-05242005-0.txt
Approved
Minutes:
-----------
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2005May/att-0017/MeetingMinutes20050517-1.txt
Approved
Action Items
------------------
1. ACTION: Martin to do UML diagram from scratch for CDL
NO PROGRESS
2. ACTION: chairs to respond to issue raiser for closed issues
STANDING ITEM
3. ACTION: Yves to define what is meant by correctness
ONGOING
4. ACTION: MC - Close 1110 with the proposed resolution.
CLOSED
issue 1110 still open therfore action is invalid
5. ACTION: Martin to record issue 1102 as resolved/later.
DONE
6. ACTION (augments 21 above): Fletcher to complete approved approach for #21.
DONE
Tony has had a chat with Paul Downey and as a result has sent revised
proposal.
NEW ACTION: chairs to bring Tony's conformance proposal to the
Choreo WG for discussion
7. ACTION: Steve and/or Martin to generate a list of the issue numbers that the editing
team should be working on as a spot check.
MC states that all editorial issues in bugzilla that are not resolved
fixed need to be done.
Nick: Asks chairs if we are still on track for end of month.
MC: Depends on number of open issues. Need to check what is left and deal with
what we know we have.
NEW ACTION: Greg to make sure all editorial issue that are in the current ed draft be marked
resolved fixed in bugzilla
8. ACTION: Chairs discuss and provide a recommendation.
ONGOIN
9. ACTION: Kavantzas provide example showing how WS-CDL binds to faults in
WSDL1.1 and WSDL1.2 to show the benefit of his approach.
DONE
10. ACTION: SRT send email to authors of proposal to provide all necessary
editorial changes to the spec to move the proposal forward.
CLOSED
Action item not relevant anymore.
Proposals
--------------
Issue1008
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1008
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005May/0049.html
Nick: Asks for examples
for WSDL 1.1/2.0
MC: Suggests timed debate
Nick - to start
Nick starts
Nick - main issue is ease of use/verbosity with current situation.
<charlton> Summary of Gary's proposal
<charlton> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005May/0007.html
Nick - Since we have no binding in WS-CDL for WSDL (1.1 or 2.0) we are dependent
on WSDL for these.
<charlton> Discussion on Gary's proposal
<charlton> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005May/0045.html
Nick - Without these binding you cannot do anything.
<charlton> 1008 Editorial Changes
<charlton> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005May/0049.html
Nick - There is no way to have interop solutions to engines/services to identify
faults uniquely for WDL1.1
okay charlton - your are next
Nick - The fault map to WSDl fault by names in Gary/Charlton proposal. When u
try to catch a fault by name you have no way of enforcing this name approach [?]
So the type using in the spec today is used to catch it by type and not name.
Nick: Gary says we should look at abstract part of WSDL and that BPEL does it by
name and so we should not be constrained by these. Which is a good point but
many things (stars) need to be aligned
Charlton responds
Fault types are not unique and this is why the proposal has been created.
By using faultname and info type we can infer the fault across WSDL1.1/2.0 .
To clarify the existing mechanism does not throw a fault. It allows for two
parts of a choreo to cause an exception on the same info/fault type.
As part of this proposal we simplify this and ensure that the exception
mechanism is not bound to any mechanism at the end points
i need to respond
We have had the discussion about what is and is not visible to the client. We
are dealing with logical/asbtract descriptions and not what is on the wire.
Given this approach (at the higher level) and given that BPEL also uses a
similar mechanism and so we are not alone. It seems this is a cleaner path to
achieve our objectives.
this is incorrect
The proposal gives a way to uniquely id a WSDL1.1 fault that cannot be done at
the moment.\
Gary - adds
it not just SOAP
The thing about interface and bindings that Nick talks about ... there is
technology that uses the WDSL abstract bindings (i.e. WSIF) and so it is a
reality now.
The proposal put fwd enables the same mechanism to be used (and therefore the
choreo) across WSDL1.1 and WSDL2.0 and so gives a no-cost upgrade path as
opposed to a +ve cost upgrade path
Monica: Thinks the proposal should be considered
Tony: As a base I think that WS-CDL coping with WSDL1.1 and WSDL2.0. If you need
two different descriptions today whereas if you can have a single description
for both then this is a step fwd
Anders: Supporting WSDl1.1 and WSDl2.0 is a good thing
Abbie: Nothing
Greg: Supporting WSDL1.1 and WSDL2.0 is a good thing
... So we should consider it.
MC: Points out that both cover WSDL1.1 and WSDL2.0
Nick: I would like to see the example because there are differences between
WSDL1.1 and WSDL2.0 that would require changes even in the proposal.
<charlton> To reiterate, Gary's proposal provides a way to uniquely identify
WSDL 1.1 faults, which cannot be done at present, and to avoid unnecessary
duplication of definitions when faults may actually be associated with smaller
set of real types, while enabling a consistent approach which simplifies the CDL
definition. As part of his proposal Gary suggests we modify causeException to
provide and exception name, rather than using the information type - a minor
<charlton> change to the syntax with zero effect on the semantics.
<charlton> It is simply an addition - or tweaking - to the existing mechanism
<m2> Please observe the other members on this call that would like to be a part
of this discussion. Thanks.
<charlton> See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005May/0049.html
The OPTIONAL attributes type and element describe the type of information used
within a Choreography as a WSDL 1.1 Message Type, an XML Schema type, a WSDL 2.0
Schema element or an XML Schema element. The type of information is exclusively
one of the aforementioned.
When the OPTIONAL attribute exceptionType is set to "true", this Information
Type is an Exception Type and MAY map to a WSDL fault type. When the attribute
exceptionType is set to "false", this information type MUST NOT map to a WSDL
fault type. The default for this attribute is set to "false".
In case of WSDL 2.0, the attribute element within the informationType refers to
a unique WSDL 2.0 faultname when the attribute exceptionType is set to "true".
Authors to provide example and normative text for proposal, and group will select between the two.
NEW ACTION: Gary/Charlton to do example [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2005/05/24-ws-chor-irc]
NEWACTION: Nick to do example [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2005/05/24-ws-chor-irc]
Examples should be in WSDL1.1 and WSDL2.0 and should be same example
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005May/0042.html
Issue1103
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1103
SRT - summarised minutes from last time.
Nick - asked if Kohei has answered his question. A yes or a no answer is needed
NEW ACTION: Nick to ask again on the public list to get a clear answer that
enables implementors to deal with the issue. It needs to be a yes or no on the
legality. So the semantics of the attributes need to be totally clear and
unabigous. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/24-ws-chor-irc]
F2F Agenda and planing
----------------------------------
Monica asks for times.
Martin will respond to Monica
9: 00 start 10:00 coffee. 12:30 lunch, 15:00 tea 17:30 finish
NEW ACTION: SRT to email Nigel W on use of group for fwd marketing
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/24-ws-chor-irc]
<Gary> Other CDL project is by Andrew Douglas
<Gary> https://sourceforge.net/projects/wscdl-eclipse/
Thanks Gary
ours is www.pi4soa.org
F2F meeting will have the latest editors draft of WS-CDL
Summary of Old and New Action Items
------------------------------------------------------
1. ACTION: Martin to do UML diagram from scratch for CDL
2. ACTION: chairs to respond to issue raiser for closed issues
3. ACTION: Yves to define what is meant by correctness
4. ACTION: Steve and/or Martin to generate a list of the issue numbers that the editing
team should be working on as a spot check.
5. ACTION: Chairs discuss and provide a recommendation.
ONGOING
6. NEW ACTION: chairs to bring Tony's conformance proposal to the
Choreo WG for discussion
7. NEW ACTION: Greg to make sure all editorial issue that are in the current ed draft be marked
resolved fixed in bugzilla
8. NEW ACTION: Gary/Charlton to do example for wsdl1.1 and 2.0 faults
9. NEW ACTION: Nick to do example for wsdl1.1 and 2.0 faults
10. NEW ACTION: Nick to ask again on the public list to get a clear answer that
enables implementors to deal with the issue. It needs to be a yes or no on the
legality. So the semantics of the attributes need to be totally clear and
unabigous.
11. NEW ACTION: SRT to email Nigel W on use of group for fwd marketing