http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2003Oct/att-0023/Agenda_10212003.htm
|
Chairs: |
|
|
Oracle | |
|
Enigmatec | |
|
|
|
|
W3C Staff Contacts |
|
|
|
|
Attendees:
|
Attachmate | |
|
BEA Systems | |
|
Choreology Ltd | |
|
Cisco Systems Inc | |
|
Commerce One | |
|
Hitachi, Ltd. | |
|
Intalio Inc. | |
|
Nortel Networks | |
|
Novell | |
|
Oracle Corporation | |
|
SAP AG | |
|
SeeBeyond Technology Corporation | |
|
Sun Microsystems, Inc. | |
|
Sun Microsystems, Inc. | |
|
TIBCO Software |
irc log at http://www.w3.org/2003/10/21-ws-chor-irc
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
Minutes 14th October 2003
Minutes were approved
Organizational
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
Usecases/requirements
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.
Issues
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
Liaison
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
BurdettML
· Matching against requirements – Not addressed during this call
OracleML
· Matching against requirements – See next Agenda Item Action
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.
D-CR-001
David: BurdettML does not assume any specific binding to WSDL at the abstract level.
D-CR-010
No comments
D-CR-056
No comments
D-CR-005
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.
D-CR-018
Nick: it is partially met by Oracle CDL
D-CR-026
No comments
D-CR-030
Nick: it is partially met by Oracle CDL
D-CR-032
Nick: it relates to 005 and 030
D-CR-055
No comments
D-CR-037
No comments
D-CR-003
Dave: Choreography should not specify actual participants
Nick: Oracle takes the approach of using channel binding at runtime. More discussion is required
D-CR-006
No comments
D-CR-034
Nick: it relates to 003
D-CR-036
Monica: does hierarchy mean nested?
D-CR-040
Nick: this is met by the reaction mechanism - Within a reaction group, only one reaction can be active.
D-CR-025
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.
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.