IRC log of ws-arch on 2002-04-04

Web Services Architecture Working Group
2002-04-04 meeting minutes

Working Group home page · Meeting records

• Attendance
• Action Items
• Agenda

This is the complete version, possibly with confidential material, of the minutes.

Timestamps are in UTC.

[hugo]

zakim, what's the agenda?

[Zakim]

I see 1 item on the agenda:

1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2002Apr/0005.html [from chris]

[hugo]

IRC log: http://www.w3.org/2002/04/04-ws-arch-irc

[hugo]

-----

1. Roll call, scribes for minutes/action items (15.00 + 5)

[hugo]

Scribe: ScottV

[chris]

ACTION: Chris, figure out how to get more members on IRC

[MikeM]

mike is scribe

[hugo]

Scribe: MikeM

(not ScottV)

[MikeM]

approval of minutes

[Dave]

brb

[MikeM]

agenda review

any other business

editor review? not much to report in item #6

joel: timing for callers at F2F

joel: breakout sessions in particular

new agenda item: time of telecon

time of call item: 2 in australia

3 in time conflict if time is moved up

[Dave]

the drumroll please...

[dbooth]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2002Apr/0005.html

[Dave]

I thought it was going to be the 15 minute compromise ;-)

[MikeM]

proposal: alternate week to spread inconvenience

critisism: people will be droping off/early late

alternate week call intime debating

calendar software cannot handle schedule

debate going back offline...

correction - approach OK- details to work out

agenda: approval of minutes 3/29

chris: irc minutes working OK?

issue: no role in minutes.

[ScottV]

I will volunteer for scribe on the next call I attend

[MikeM]

henrik: bootstrap issue between role taking and scribe choosing

no objection to minutes approval 3/29

no objections to late binding the role to the minutes

item 4: review action items

[hugo]

DONE: ACTION: Hugo?: post minutes to public page

ACTION: Editors: Rename D-AG0006 into AG-0006: PENDING

[MikeM]

draft goal 6 renamed to goal 6?

2nd action done

[hugo]

DONE: ACTION: Chris: Send email to public list asking for summary

DONE: ACTION: Chris: figure out how to fix DS

[MikeM]

3rd action item done

[hugo]

ACTION: DavidO: Send updated version of DAG0010 to the public list and say that it was accepted [PENDING]

[MikeM]

action 6 done

[hugo]

DONE: ACTION: Hugo, Doug: send new combined proposal for 13&14 to list and say that it was accepted

[MikeM]

action 7 - not done

[hugo]

ACTION: Chris (and Zulah): send proposed wording to list and take it to email [PENDING]

[Dave]

I'm back.

[MikeM]

agenda #5 status report

WS-CG report

[hugo]

CG minutes: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/cg/2/04/02-minutes

[MikeM]

RDF interest group - ability to serialize

offer to host f2f in june in paris - accepted

[dbooth]

June F2F logistics page: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/04/f2fJuneLogistics.html

L'Exchangeur

[MikeM]

6/10-6/14 in l'Exchangeur

f2f: WSD at start of week, WSA from mid week

action item 2 - pending

action item 5: pending

hugo: rest of report with WS-CG

hugo: coordinate with OASIS

hugo: check sept f2f dates with WSD

chris: f2f in virginia, dates at call end

Prep for f2f

organized by breakout sections

daniel: need a f2f item to explain csf process

chris: this is reflected in the current agenda

chris: progress in small groups

chris: report finding in regroup sessions

chris: this is the time to dial-up participation

chris: day1 refinement of goals using csf

chris: day2 - group refinement of day 1 results

sandip: logistics issue about rooms for breakouts

chris: we can use virtual rooms

sandip: possible to get separate rooms for breakouts? bridge issue?

chris: result --- get to a requirements document from a content perspective

chris: editors will clean up language afterwords

chris: breakouts organized by goals

chris: attempt to lump some goals together

query: some goals look like requirements and visa versa

[Dave]

query is daveo btw

[MikeM]

daniel: refactoring will have to be done. get to 4/5 top level goals

mike: thanks

daveo: factoring based on requirements: security, reliability, discovery

chris: this is the priorization exercise

??: need some parallelization

suresh: we should pre-post the groupings

[Dave]

?? was DaveO

[MikeM]

chris: will consider with proposal

roger: break into groups arbitarily then cycle topics through the groups

dave: successful groups have taskforces or committees

dave: to make progress, we will have to split up the work

chris: prioritation should handle this aspect

chris: want to give opportunity for each topic at the same time get some efficiency

chris: will consider topics tonight

chris: note the required reading, now includes the DAML-S stuff

query: is r. fielding in this group?

chris: do we want a tag update at the f2f

chris: daveo will do this in the afternoon

refine goals time

[hugo]

DAG0011

Mike: 3 options

... 1. keep the subgoals

... 2. remove them

... 3. keep the subgoals until the TAG gives us an explicit list

[MikeM]

daveo: do not reinvent the work of the TAG

daniel: no need to try to define the web arch

dave: there are areas of disagreement with the TAG

dave: example is the use of REST - SOAP w/HTTP POST

markb: some obvious things we could use from the TAG in time

[DaveH]

queue

speak

?

[MikeM]

henrik: we should initiate some of the discussions between WSA and the TAG

[chris]

daveh and then we'll wrap this one up

[MikeM]

query: should a stronger liason with the TAG occur

[ScottV]

regrettably, I have another meeting

[MikeM]

henrik: TAG should take advantage of of our WSA group

chris: goal 11 - still pending

[Dave]

?

zakim, I'm Dave

[Zakim]

I don't understand 'I'm Dave', Dave. Try /msg Zakim help

[Dave]

Q should be DaveO

[MikeM]

markh: key arch issue is how WS arch evolves from the existing web. it is not a goal to be exactly consistent.

hugo: the web is the web and there are core principals

daveo: WS can refine certain aspects of the Web arch/model. Where is the delegation boundary between the groups.

chris: goal 12 time

paul: not much discussion. usage scenarios have been offered

paul: terminology is not critical - use cases vs usage scenarios

chris: we want to find some use cases

dave: xmlp has extensive use cases document

dave: strange to have a 3rd set of UCs

chris: our UC have been copied

dave: should be a UC coordination group

chris: we don't want to redo their UCs

chris: should explore a more formal expression of common UCs

chris: in the next CG

[chris]

ACTION: Chris to bring up possibility of joint UC tf between WS WGs and next WS-CG meeting

[MikeM]

daniel: UC have been harvested from elsewhere

[hugo]

RRSAgent, ACTION 5 = Chris to bring up possibility of joint usage scenarios and glossary TF between WS WGs at next WS-CG meeting

[MikeM]

daniel: paul posted a doc with references to WS requirements harvesting

paul: should UCs should be in a goal?

zula: is this goal/csf's a business framing for use cases?

daniel: goals are for the group, so it is OK to cover the process of gathering UCs as a goal

zula: what level should the csf's be at?

zula: the intent is to enumerate the possible business usages

chris: also there are technical use cases

[mitrepaul]

I just disconnected myself, be right back online

[MikeM]

daniel: interactions points should be illustrated. the UC do not have to be business oriented

dave: the csf is not a set of UCs - but a means to measure whether we have met our goal

[DaveH]

speak

[mitrepaul]

i just sent my thoughts on use case csf to the list

[MikeM]

chris: did not put all the UCs in this goal

[mitrepaul]

wsawg should manage master list of web services use cases

csf: other wg's should reference our use cases

[dbooth]

I will start scribing now.

[hugo]

DAG0017

[TomCarrol]

provides guidance for the development of the web services infrastructure needed to implement common business functions in a standards-based environment

coppied from the doc

[hugo]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Mar/0465.html

[TomCarrol]

D-AG0017

provides guidance for the development of the web services infrastructure needed to implement common business functions in a standards-based environment

Measurements:

Is there a frameword within the web services architecture that will support at least an 80-20 of the functions currently offered by proprietary VAN's (Value Added Networks) to support EDI functions? In particular, will the web services architecture support reliable messaging, routing and intermediaries, unique ID and sequencing of messages and transaction processing?

[chris]

appologies for messing up the references for the discussion:)

[dbooth]

Daniel Austin:

... I agree with what you're doing. We use EDI extensively.

.. Perhaps we should not have it as a separate goal.

... But tackle it as a set of use cases.

... "User wants to buy somthing"

... "User wants an invoice"

... The other goals should address these user actions.

... Maybe these are not goals like the others are (eg security).

... But maybe other goals should take these into account.

Roger: My objective is to make sure these issues are not lost.

... I agree maybe they shouldn't all be goals.

... But I think of it as a goal that EDI should be covered.

Dave: The problem I had with this goal is that I saw a whole lot of requirements and solutions.

... These are requirements areas.

... But I don't think they should all be stated as goals.

Henrik: I agree. I think these are primarily user scenarios.

Topic: Offer from DISA to host F2F in Washington DC.

Chris: WHich week do people prefer?

Sept 9-13? 23-27?

(People mentioned conflicts in both)

[Dave]

TAG f2f, Nextware show week of 23-27th

[hugo]

Zakim, please excuse us

[dbooth]

I will post this query to the email list. Please respond directly to me -- not the list.

[hugo]

ADJOURNED

[dbooth]

[Meeting adjourned]

[hugo]

RRSAgent, what actions?

[RRSAgent]

I see 5 action items:

ACTION: Chris, figure out how to get more members on IRC [1]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/04/04-ws-arch-irc#T20-15-00

ACTION: Editors: Rename D-AG0006 into AG-0006: PENDING [2]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/04/04-ws-arch-irc#T20-25-54

ACTION: DavidO: Send updated version of DAG0010 to the public list and say that it was accepted [PENDING] [3]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/04/04-ws-arch-irc#T20-26-50

ACTION: Chris (and Zulah): send proposed wording to list and take it to email [PENDING] [4]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/04/04-ws-arch-irc#T20-27-20

ACTION: Chris to bring up possibility of joint usage scenarios and glossary TF between WS WGs at next WS-CG meeting [5]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/04/04-ws-arch-irc#T21-12-56

[hugo]

RRSAgent, please excuse us