Working Group home page · Meeting records
Thompson Corporation Hao He
Cisco Systems Inc Sandeep Kumar
See agenda posted by the Chair.
1.Roll call 2. Scribe assigned (Katia Sycara) 3. Last week's telecon minutes approved 4 MikeC: David Orchard fulfilled his action item, but action item not closed yet until we are done with the requirements. 5. Zulah reports on the Management TF. The TF keeps records of their discussions but do not publish them yet on the public mailing list MikeC: suggests for the group to compy with Hugo's requirements re W3C rules. Zulah: agrees to facilitate this compliance. Discussion of Hugo's wish to participate in the MTF Zulah says anyone who would like to participate should contact her, and also Mike C and David H, as well as Hether and Hugo.. Discussion as to stardardization of terminology for the MTF. Zulah: agrees to facilitate compliance of Hugo's request to post the MTF e-mails to the archives. Zulah: reports that the MTF is in the process of developing Web Services Management conceptual view in addition to the Architectural view. This Management conceptual model would be done by end of October (the time frame agreed at the f2f). Zulah: feels confident that this is progressing in a timely manner. 6. Requirements document status report MikeC: Decision to publish as a working draft. It will be a living document but the group will not be spending much time on this. Daniel: intends to publish new version to the group tonight with an intended publication date Monday 10/07/02. The intention is to publish it as a semi final version. The editors feel that the document is complete to a large extend. However, there should be a process to make additions or modifications to the document. These changes are expected to be infrequent. Tonight the document will be released to the group, so that the group can give feedback by Monday. The group agreed on the intent and publication date. Grateful thanks were extended by the chairs to the editors especially Daniel and Chris. 7. MikeC: Hugo's review of SOAP attachment features was sent to the list. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Oct/0018.html Not much e-mail discussion. Since Hugo is not present, we can defer the discussion till next week. 8. Proposal for the creation of a W3C Choreography Working Group MikeC: summarized http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2002Oct/0005.html to the wsawg on the subject of the choreography proposal. The web services coordination group (wsawg chairs, plus representation from W3C management) reviewed the choreography document. The W3C management committee (one from each company) starts Nov 18, they will be presented with the proposal and will be asked for their approval. The presentation to the AC will include results of their consulatation with the stakeholders. The opinion of a substantial percentage of the Coordinating Group (excluding the wsag chairs) said that the choreography charter was loosely defined, and expressed concerns that, if the choreography group was initiated with such a vague charter, it may take it a long time till the objectives, scope etc are clearly defined the CG believes that the W3C would need more guidance. Hence the CG strongly advised (1) that the wsawg group should make enough progress in the wsa framework so that choreography can be better delineated, and (2) that the wsawg should revise the choreography proposal to make it more concrete. The chairs asked the wsawg group to affirm or not whether the wsawg understands what happened. Let the minutes reflect that the group affirmed that they understand what has happened. DanielA: asks for clarification of the next steps for the wsawg regarding the advice of the CG. MikeC: that this task could potentially be a distration from our current progress in the wsa framework, on the other hand it could be an accelerator. Hopefully wsdl would fit neatly, perhaps not wsci. But trying to fit these in the wsa framework may give our group a better understanding of our progress in defining the framework. FrankMC: the choreography group, taking time to market into consideration, perhaps worded the proposed charter less tightly than they might have. Mike C:says that time to market is for the spec not for the group. The wish of the Coordination Group would be that the choreography group would be better off if some additional up front thinking is done. MarkJ: proposes to "go with the flow", ie take up these assignments from the CG He recommends to get someone familiar with both specs to compare and contrast MikeC: says the CG could volunteer people for this. Also people should look at their colleagues for experts, also some of the WSCI people could be asked to join the wsawg, or join our teleconfs or write something up. MikeC: also says that this activity is aligned with the purpose of forming the choreography group in the first place, since few of us are choreography experts. JeffM: volunteered to get people to help in this effort. MarkC: With respect to the issue of infrasturcture vs business issues, to his reading, most of choreography proposal addresses technical issues, not business ones. MikeC: said the CG made this point. DaveO: cannot comit any allocation of resources, but refining in the architecture document areas of descriptions of choreography is a good thing. He likes the approach, but recommends providing a moderately scoped diving down within next level of detail, not spending much time of the whole wsa group on detailing this. MikeC: suggests to perhaps appoint a TF to pursue this. But at a rough level only, perhaps breadth first so we can add value to the choreography scoping dicusssions. DaveH: This will be a topic of the next meeting of W3C forum. He agrees with what DavidO said. Better to take one step further to our document, than spend a lot of time to detail. Working definitions of coordination vs collaboration, choreography vs orchestration, how state impacts choreography etc and how they map on the architecture coul be very useful in the presentation. DaveO: reported that TAG had a f2f meeting (in which DavidO was present) where some conversations on choreograhy took place. Tin Berners Lee directly ask DavidO why the wsawg had not yet published a framework for choreography. DavidO interprets this as an indication that as Tim is enthusiastic about choreography. MikeC: yes, we want to capture choreography at the coarse level in the wsa. FrankMC: on a technical level, the bottom part of scoping of choreography is much more clear than the top. Architecture's principal role is to draw a box where choreography should fit. Daniel reports on experience he had with presenting to the AC a propoposal for a new group. He urges the group to be focused and have the scope nailed down. He had a bad experience with a wg descendent from XM. The proposers went though 3 charters and lots of work before the working group was finally formed. MikeC: we must be prepared. Suresh: choreography of what? Web services. But, we do not know clearly what web services are. We can talk about choreograhy only of things we know, so it will come down to choreographing wsdl and soap. Roger: Where do the business issues come from in the ACs comments? MikeC: the AC was asking where to draw the line between business issues and infrastructure issues. Roger: we should give a thought as to what is infrasturcture and what business JeffM: we had talked whether the scope would be ok to narrow down to the wsci scope. Is that narrowing what the AC is looking for? MikeC: they want us to go through specs and find out the good ideas there. JeffM: how can a group of 3 predict how the group of 300 is going to react? What value can we bring and distill in the ensuing weeks? FrankMC: it is not just a matter of terminilogy, but if we can define terms clearly, it is a good thing to do in order to avoid fruitless discussions during the meeting. JeffM: can the W3C sponsor a workshop to start the discussion going, since the management may not produce results till much later. Sinisa: It shouldn't be too hard to put together some slides to compare wsci with the other specs (eg wsfl+xlang )etc. DavidH: we would be grateful to anyone who would submit such a comparison or analysis of these specs. Sinisa: we cannot just stop at the comparison, we must organize on how to proceed with the spec we have on the table, i.e. the concrete boxes in the wsa framework, and set up a structure. Sinisa: offered to volunteer someone from his development group. MikeC: It is not exactly clear what the scope of the AC request is, but the goal is to help the AC understand what the scope of the choreography proposal is. MarkChapman: we need to extract from the specs the essence. DaveH: Let the minutes reflect that the chairs solicit (1) any and all substantive analysis with respect to the above issues on choreography (specs comparison, analysis, etc), (2) proposals of how to proceed with the AC meeting and (3) someone to volunteer to act as a glosary agent to capture all definitions to be applied to the term(s) (choreography and related terms) Action for chairs: to send out an e-mail with these solicitations. 9. Eric: sent last night a draft of the wsa document. He outlines the approach he is taken (also in his email of 10/03/2002 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Oct/0038.html Bottom up view, top down, execution flow. He started with the consensus f2f diagram. Also will expand this from the basic architecture to an extended arch to represent extended functionality. This corresponds to the existing current implementations that are out there now. Architectural basic arch is well represented in the group. We can also try to represent the extensibility and describe the overarching security, management etc. Eric: has two questions: Needs feedback on the approach (simple diagram first then expand) Second: to what point should examples be introduced? DaveO: thanks Eric, work looks pretty good. There is information that is not caputured in the document. How should it be represented? An appendix or tutorial, or other? Eric: the work is not finished, the additional info should be included somehow. 10. Label for top node of the triangle diagram. DaveO: summary for top node label., he sent a message yesterday. How can we come to closure on this? No solution to make everyone happy. Many people can live with Discovery Agency but not many people actually like it. Many people feel ok with Registry, but some cannot live with it DavidB: we can label it, "web,/registry, etc". another suggestion is to simply admit more than one diagram, tried to send examples but his e-mail failed. More than one diagram reflects more than one way of doing it. Roger: I do not like web or web, like D-Registry (draft Registry) so we can come back to it. DaveO: I push back on the term "web" and have described my objections in e-mail DaveB: they have not been described in e-mail DaveO: no one of us will get what they want exactly. This is just one box and one term. We have about 50 more. So we should think about scalability of our group, how to define these terms Igor: propose series of straw polls to resolve the naming issues. DaveO: this is sort of what I did in my summary. Doug: there has been fair amount of pushback for "the web" (a) scope is too big, what is the web excluding? (b) for similar reason , how does the web help with the pub/sub? So, going with Igor, the web is not on our list of considerations right tnow. MikeC: Can David O construct a straw poll? DavidO: how many people on the call can live with registry, web, discovery agency? MikeC: let us do it in e-mail. MikeC calls for a straw poll of those present in the telecon. As to those wanting Regisrty vs those wanting Discovery Agencies Results: Registry : 6 Discovery Agencies: 7 Cannot live with "Registry":2 Cannot live with "Discovery Agencies": 2 MikeC: So, no quick resolution, we will have e-mail voting Chairs will take an action item to clarify the policy on the format for sending (e.g. html) and will inform the wsag.
http://www.w3.org/2002/10/03-ws-arch-irc