IRC log of ws-arch on 2002-08-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

Present

AT&T Mark Jones

BEA Systems David Orchard

ChevronTexaco Roger Cutler

Contivo Dave Hollander

Fujitsu Frank McCabe

Hewlett-Packard Company Zulah Eckert

IBM Chris Ferris

IBM Heather Kreger

Idokorro Mobile Mark Baker

MartSoft Corp. Jin Yu

Oracle Corporation Martin Chapman

Oracle Corporation Jeff Mischkinsky

Software AG Michael Champion

Sun Microsystems, Inc. Doug Bunting

W3C David Booth

[frankmcca]

a note to editors of the WSA: there are approx 5 pages of blanks between normative ref 1 and ref2

[chrisf]

thanks, I'll have a look...

[dbooth]

zakim, ??p13 is dbooth

Meeting: WS Arch Teleconference

Chair: Mike Champion

Scribe: DavidB

[DaveH]

I am here too dave

[dbooth]

ACTION: Everyone to send a message about what issues they are championing.

Chair: Mike Champion & Dave Hollander

[chrisf]

message from mike re: champions is at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Aug/0264.html

[dbooth]

agenda+ Editor's draft of Arch document

agenda+ Choreography

Topic: Editor's draft of Arch document

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/08/wd-wsa-arch-20020821.html

DavidB: I was struck by the overlap in intent behind the introduction in the Arch document and the Introduction that I'm doing for the WSDL Primer, and would love to combine our efforts on this.

ACTION: Chairs to take the need for an Architectural Intro/Primer to WS CG.

Frank: I suggest listing the elements and the relationships betwen the elements.

Here is the URL: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12-primer.html?rev=1.2&content-type=text/html

DaveH: I'm working with Eric on some pictures.

[chrisf]

dbooth: concept of ws desc is introduced early on

dbooth: missing is notion of a contract between client and service

dbooth: wsdl is intended to express interface aspect of contract

daveh: context; inband and out-of-band

frank: concept of contract always there

[dbooth]

Frank: THe contract shoudl be inband.

DaveH: In EDI, for example, it isn't always inband.

[chrisf]

ebXML has CPA which is electronic form of TPA

[dbooth]

DaveH: Arch document should include contract information.

DavidB: A WSDl document, for example, doesn't indicate that your credit card will be debited if you send in this particular message.

[chrisf]

another form of "contract" is an SLA

[dbooth]

Doug: We also need to capture the possibility of negotiating a contact between two parties.

DaveH: It is very helpful to identify the levels of agreement, such as message syntax, MEPs, SLAs and business level agreements.

Mark Jones: Is this like WSEL?

Jeff: This discussion is getting high level. What does it have to do with Web Services?

[chrisf]

IMO, nothing we've discussed is outside the scope of the architecture

[dbooth]

DaveH: To refocus, the current draft omitted the idea of "context" and "contract".

[chrisf]

whether all web services leverage all of the higher level bits we've discussed is a different question

[dougb]

I agree Chris, recognition within the architecture should not imply we provide a technological solution.

[dbooth]

+1

[chrisf]

they all do need to fit into the architecture and the architecture needs to accomodate them

[dougb]

++

[DaveH]

zakim, they are part of the consensus process! Look there.

[Zakim]

I don't understand 'they are part of the consensus process! Look there.', DaveH. Try /msg Zakim help

[dbooth]

Mike: We also omitted talk about "discovery".

[chrisf]

agreed, discovery needs to be incorporated

[dbooth]

Frank: If the purpose of the Arch doc is to put proposed WGs into context, then I think it may be too low level by getting into messages.

DaveH: I agree, provided we don't lose focus.

Roger: I like the focus on messaging. It is pragmatic, and I understanding it.

Doug: But we're not talking about eliminating the good things that we have already, but adding more context.

Frank: I thought the doc was a very useful start.

(Much gratitude to the editors generally expressed.)

[Roger]

Sorry, gotta go. The taxi is here.

[dbooth]

DavidB: Editors please also look at the WSDL Primer intro and give me any feedback you have. Again, I'd like to help combine efforts on these intros.

Topic: Choreography

Mike: There is a lot of work going on right now, but not much order to it.

... Do these specs paint a coherent picture?

Doug: I think this area is confused at the moment, and we need a standards-track process to rationalize it. Not necessarily in the WS Arch WG, and not necessarily before a new WS Choreography WG is chartered.

DaveH: I believe that's the only avenue left to us.

[chrisf]

IMO, there is some overlap between WSCI, BPEL and BPSS but they are not necessarily mutually exclusive of one another

[dbooth]

Mike: We also had this issue with Security, and a Security WG was proposed.

... If we carve out an area, and don't find applicable work already done, then we carve out a WG.

[dougb]

Chris, do you mean BPEL4WS?

[chrisf]

yup

[dbooth]

MarkNottingham: My concern is that something like this could easily monopolize the group.

DaveH: We've also learned from the Security experience, and don't necessarily want to repeat it.

Mike: If we were going to figure this out as individuals, we would get the author of these specs around the same table.

JeffM: I agree. Get them all in the same room.

Mike: Should we organize a workshop?

JeffM: Good idea.

... But it should be done in the context of having chartered real work to be done.

... Theree's a lot of ferment going on in this area.

... But we're not sure how to factor it.

... We shouldn't wait for a workshop.

ChrisF: Waiting for a workshop before a WG can be chartered seems backward.

... One problem is that the process is too slow.

MarkN: If we don't have a good idea of what we want this WG to do, it will be hard to write the charter.

... And if we try to continue in parallel, and the boundary is fuzzy, it will be hard.

... We'll have to put in some sweat just to get a reasonable charter.

... Even at the vocabulary level: choreography, orchestration, etc.

... If we don't wrestle a little with those ideas,then the charter will be too vague.

[Mark_J]

that was MarkJ, not markN

[mnot]

yep

[dbooth]

DaveH: I think time is critical right now. At minimum we need 6 weeks before a workshop, and another 6 weeks after that is too long.

... So we need to parallelize.

... (With chair hat on): Last week we talked about whether we should charter a WG. I've heard from several people who are looking at writing a charter.

... Mike and I need to talk about this before the F2F, but it is very reasonable that we may have chartering discussions at the F2F.

... So I think this is very much in topic, and I encourage others to participate.

Mike: Your point about the 6 week notice is well taken.

ACTION: Chairs to put Choreography WG on the agenda for the first September teleconference, in prep for the F2F.

MartinChapman: I think the inputs scope the work.

ChrisF: The inputs are overlapping, and not mutually exclusive.

... if you put them together, you might have a holistic solution.

MartinChapman: Rationalizing the overlapping, etc., will be a good 6 months of work. Why not let the WG do that?

Mike: Do we want to bundle up the reading list and give it to the WG to sort out?

... Or do we want to at least clean up the vocabulary, etc.?

... Or identify one spec in particular as a starting point?

JeffM: How long do you thing that would take? I think it would have to be done all over again in the WG.

... Of ifyou pick a spec, then i think we'll spend time battling about which parts to capture.

... So we'll spend time arguing about the meta-question about factoring the space.

DaveH: The charter is a call for participation. If it results in more domain expertise being applied, i think that's a positive outcome.

MarkN: I agree with JeffM

[chrisf]

plusone

[dbooth]

DavidB: I agree also: I think it makes more sense for the proposed WG to work it out.

Mike: So a rough consensus is the try to get the domain experts together in a WG, with a fairly liberal charter, and let them loose.

MartinChapman: But we should tightly constrain the WG schedule.

[chrisf]

+1 to martin's suggestion

[dbooth]

DaveH: If there end up being conflicts between the proposed WG's work and the WS Arch's work, then it will need to be resolved, but I think that's a risk we should take.

Frank: The proposed WG should coordinate tightly with the WS Arch WG.

ChrisF: I think i agree, but I'm hearing two things.

... ONe is a fairly liberal charter, but with time constraints.

... Part of the problem is that there are similiarities in what they're trying to achieve, but they're addressing different aspects.

... So I don't think we should define the scope too narrowly.

... The other thing is that the work should fall into the WS activity, so the coordination should be authomatic.

JeffM: If we recommend chartering the WG at the F2F, then the AC will want to wordsmith it, then there's an 8-week review period, so in the intervening time, we could do a workshop.

MarkN: The WG's first F2F will be like a workshop.

[chrisf]

+1 to mark's suggestion

[Mark_J]

that was MarkJ, not MarkN

[dbooth]

DougBunting: I agree that we need relatively liberal charter, but have a time box.

.. But we're talking at two separate levels: How to describe this space in our arch doc. The other level is them coming out with a solution that works within that space.

... Those could be 2 separate deliverables. We could ask the new WG: Please provide a description for our doc.

DaveH: A new WG will require at least 2 months. We'll need the support of all members, including chairs.

MikeH: The consensus seems to be: We wantto charter a WG to attract the domain experts in this field, and we'll delgate the responsibility for arch issues.

[DaveH]

That 2 months gives wsa time to do more framework development that could be fed into the initial activities of the proposed wg.

[dbooth]

... Realistically, that could not be until NOvember at the earliest.

... In the meantime, we can incorporate our increasing knowledge of the area into the charter.

ChrisF: I like the idea of either having the first F2F be a workshop, that could have invited experts.

Mike: So we could just bake that into the charter.

+1

JeffM: If i understand the timing, the earliest we could have a meeting would be about 3 months from now.

... If we think it will take 12 weeks for the first meeting as part of the new WG, then maybe we should have the WS Arch WG sponsor a workshop in 6 weeks intead.

(others agree)

DaveH: We might end up with a three-way: WS Arch F2F, Orch workshop, and ___.

[DaveH]

New-WG f2f joint session

[dbooth]

ChrisF: We shouldn't have the formation ofthe WG dependent on the workshop first.

[mnot]

comment: I like chris' proposal, tho it might be good to *not* call out specific specs in the charter

[dougb]

ChrisF: <good to capture> ... reference output of workshop rather than including directly, allowing parallelism

[Zakim]

WS_ArchWG()3:30PM has ended

[chrisf]

zakim, please excuse us

rrsagent, please excuse us

[RRSAgent]

I see 3 open action items:

ACTION: Everyone to send a message about what issues they are championing. [1]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/08/22-ws-arch-irc#T19-44-15

ACTION: Chairs to take the need for an Architectural Intro/Primer to WS CG. [2]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/08/22-ws-arch-irc#T19-53-44

ACTION: Chairs to put Choreography WG on the agenda for the first September teleconference, in prep for the F2F. [3]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/08/22-ws-arch-irc#T20-40-42