Minutes 14 September 2004 Con Call

agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2004Sep/att-0033/Agenda20040914_1.txt

Role Call:
----------------

Martin Chapman (Oracle), Steve Ross-Talbot (Enigmatec), Carine Bournez (w3c), Yves Lafon (w3c), David Burdett (Commerce One),
Gary Brown (Enigmatec), Yoko Seki (Hitachi), Abbie Barbir (Nortel Networks), Greg Ritzinger (Novell), Nickolas Kavantzas (Oracle),
Jeff Mischkinsky (Oracle), Charlton Barreto (webMethods)

Confirm Scribe
---------------------

David Burdett Scribed in irc

IRC log at : http://www.w3.org/2004/09/14-ws-chor-irc

Approve minutes
------------------------

The minutes for the 7th September, 2004
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2004Sep/att-0027/Minutes09142004_0.txt

approved.

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. We can see in front of us the choreography being executed, what we do today with current language, what we can do with transaction. Steve is starting to add exception handling. Nick and Steve have corresponded on "perform" which revealed some errors in the specification to be corrected.

IN PROGRESS: Steve has sent out e-mails but has still not heard back from Bill or Matthew

ACTION 2: Steve to call Bill (Specht) and / or Matthew (Arrott).

IN PROGRESS

ACTION 3: Charlton to look at impact on our language of supporting BP (WS-I Basic Profile) 1.1, SSBP (Simple SOAP Binding Profile) 1.0, AP (Attachments Profile) 1.0

Submitted a proposal and waiting for feedback. Some feedback received. On today's agenda

DONE

ACTION 4: Editors to produce and publicize the list of changes made in the latest ED draft.

Close to being produced. (only bugzilla issues and meeting resolutions need to be referenced here)

Inprogress

ACTION 5: Editors to evolve it in the next few weeks with goal of enabling the WG to adopt a new WD at the next formal meeting 31 Aug.

Nick.:Hoped to get it out last night, but there were some problems with the import proposal which need to be fixed. About 50 items have been included.

Martin: it would be easier if there were notes from the editors meetings.

IN PROGRESS

ACTION 6: Review and produce LC comments on the WSDL 2.0 docs by the end of the next f2f. Need someone to coordinate the activity. Chairs to put on agenda for 31 Aug.

Charton has sent in some comments.

IN PROGRESS

ACTION 7: Chairs to contact Charlton and to put on the agenda for next week.
same as action 6 so delete action.

ACTION 8: Gary to split out the three individual choreographies in his composition.pdf document to highlight the touch points for next week.
Submitted and on today's agenda

DONE

ACTION 9: Monica to provide exact proposed text to replace the mention of UDDI.

In IRC notes of last week: http://www.w3.org/2004/09/07-ws-chor-irc

DONE

ACTION 10: Raise the allowed isolation level of nested choreographies as an issue

Not assigned to anyone.
IN PROGRESS

Import
--------

Nick: Yves made some proposed changes and greg has applied them. Nick has reviewed them. Steve put forward the approach which is basically using XInclude.

Nick: wants to constrain what can be used. The original intention was to facilitate reuse of subsets of choreography definitions.

Steve: This is a different proposal as the current proposal makes no distinction

Martin: Partial inclusion is not what we agreed.

Nick: New issue. He doesn't think that the current approach faciliates reuse. Primarily you can use types but not work units.

Martin: ... to nick ... you can raise a new issue.

Steve: It is really like a #include in C++.

Nick: it's not the same C++ can drag functions, wheras we are dragging in lower level items.

Steve: the intent of the proposal is to have a "braindead" file based inclusion.

Martin: the reason was to avoid issues.

Nick: but the issues are not avoided.

Steve: User has the responsibility to make sure that the result of anything that is included actually makes sense.

Martin/Steve: Nick, you need to raise an issue if you want to fix this problem

Steve: Basically we are not fixing the issue that monica raised which is Nick's concern.

WSDL
---------

Charlton: first proposal was around issues raised in last F2F around deprecation of features from WSDL 1.1. that are not in WSDL 2.0

Charlton: On closer inspection WSDL 2.0 is a full super set except that there some name changes. So in supporting WSDL 1.1 there are no really problems in supporting something that is deprecated

Charlton: doesn't see any issues for CDL, although we might want to say something in the spec.

Charlton: also proposed the inclusion of a version element for the WSDL version. Gary suggested not needed, Charlton now agrees.

Charlton: instead we can use the version element in WSDL itself.

Nick: So we are going to support all the MEPs in WSDL 2.0

Nick: There are also some interesting semantics in the new MEPs that does not have support in CDL. So we need to think carefully about how we support these MEPs.

Nick: at the moment we only support the first two MEPs, we don't supportr the other six.

Nick: Also, how does this change with BP 1.1?

Nick: We need to do more work to support WSDL 2.0 MEPs in CDL.

Charlton: Wouldn't it be better to support WSDL 2.0 now. The parser could then support this when parsing a CDL.

Nick: The way to do it is a separatre discussion - thinks there are a lot of challenges

Nick: Do we need to insiste that for every sending WSDL there is a receiving WSDL and vice versa. In traditional WSDL, the wsdl is done from the view of the client rather than the server

Nick: Does the client also need to have a contract?

Martin: There is very little support for solicit response. Partly because if you want to support an out only, then WSDL describes it from the server contract. You can do this by putting a one-way on the client side.

Nick: From choreos you might develop end-point contracts. We also need to support BPEL.

Martin:thinks that solicit response in WSDL 1.1. is so badly defined we should not be supporting them,

Martin: however WSDL 2.0 is a lot better and could work. However this means that there is a lack of compatibility.

Steve: Is it reasonable to say that CDL 1.0 must support WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0 for out and out-in only.

Gary: the main reason for a message exchange pattern is that you message to message. If we change CDL so that it only support a single message then the problem goes away

Martin; problem is how you make these concrete in WSDL

Nick: The problem is what happens when you get excetions in terms of what happens.

Gary: are people building endpoints using WSDL 2.0.

Nick: There are many options and we need to work out what we can do.

Steve: We are trying to guess what the vendors are doing. If some are going to come out with WSDl 2.0 then we will need to reconsider

Steve: for example how many web services are there being actually used? In financial serviecs there are "not a lot"

Steve: we need to be clear on what is coming.

Steve, Nick And Martin: It all depends on how people products support WSDL 2.0, BPEL, and all the other standards since CDL need to work with them

Martin: CDL currently only does one-way and request-response which are in BP1.1 and WSDL 2.0.

Martin: so in the short term doesn't want to do more work since there is so much uncertainty.

Martin: what we might regret is not supporting the additional MEPs in WSDL 2.0

Martin: solicit response and notification are now rarely used. So we need to say what to do if you need to want to support these for WSDL 1.1

Steve: wants a clear statement that the additional MEPs in WSDL 2.0 will be supported in a future version

Martin: Do we need to support solicit-notification from WSDL 1.1 so that we apply restrictions?

Martin: So are we ok that we constrain CDL to support WSDL 1.1 as constrained by BP 1.0.

Nick: what do we need to do with the spec to reflect this. It is potentially a lot of work.

Steve: Do we want to constrain CDL to support WSDL 1.1. MEPs as constrained by BP 1.1

Steve: any objections/clarifications? None heard
Proposal accepted. When using wsdl 1.1 in CDL, CDL will only support the WSDL 1.1 patterns that are in WS-I's BP1.1

Martin: now discuss WSDL 2.0

Steve: Given the MEPs in WSDL 2.0 how do we want to restrict this, if at all?

Martin: Current spec constrains MEPs to in only and request response, so only two supported.

Martin: When WSDL is written, you don't have to use it all including all the MEPS defined in WSDl 2.0.

Gary: this makes it hard for us to decide what the restrictions will be

Martin: if we want to suppor the other MEPs, who does the work?

Nick: really the question is are we comfortable with CDL if it does not support these MEPs?

Steve: Thinks we should support these MEPs if we can, but dont have to.

David: the real issue is whether CDL is usable without support for the additional MEPs?

Steve: The problem is that the world is moving on and WSDL 2.0 solutions will be coming out and so CDL might be left behind.

Steve: so really we have to decide on how useful these MEPS would be.

Gary: for example can we support twist and fix without them?

conclusion is to think about whether CDL is useufull enough is only the two WSDL 2.0 meps are supported.
The deafult would be to assume yes, and will only be rediscussed if proposals to support other WSDL 2.0 MEPs are made.

AOB
------

examples:

Nick: What has been happening in the example sub group? The CDL doc has an example section "to be filled in".

Nick: do we have an example with CDL code and an explanation

Nick: (as editor) do we need an example in the doc

Steve: probably needed by last call.

Steve: there is nothing that can be included in at the moment ... but will check with Tony ...

NEW ACTION: Chairs to sort out examples work.

Composition:

Steve: Will reissue the document that Gary put together on composition. Want's comments!

Discussion on whether there is a meeting next week because of BPEL F2F.
There will be a call next week tho quite a few people will be at the BPEL F2F.

Summary of Outstanding Actions
----------------------------------------------

ACTION 2: Steve to call Bill (Specht) and / or Matthew (Arrott).

ACTION 4: Editors to produce and publicize the list of changes made in the latest ED draft.

ACTION 5: Editors to evolve it in the next few weeks with goal of enabling the WG to adopt a new WD at the next formal meeting 31 Aug.

ACTION 6: Review and produce LC comments on the WSDL 2.0 docs by the end of the next f2f. Need someone to coordinate the activity. Chairs to put on agenda for 31 Aug.

ACTION 10: Raise the allowed isolation level of nested choreographies as an issue

NEW ACTION 11: Chairs to sort out examples work.