WSA Telcon Minutes 24 July 2003

Attendees

Contents

• Topics
• Summary of Action Items

<Topic> Minutes approval from last call [1] from July 17, 2002.
... Action Items Review

<MikeC> review and update of action items - see at http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/3/07/items.htm.

<DavidB> Question: should the definition of Web Services be tight to the definition in the architecture document?

<MikeC> What means tight together?

<DavidB> Tight referes to the defintion of the scope of Web services.

<MikeC> What are you proposing?

<David> Yes, it should be.

<DaveH> Can go both ways.

<FrankM> At least, we should point out that it is our (WSA's) definition.

<MikeC> Either way we have to say what we understand under Web services. Postpone discussion to f2f next week.

<DavidB> Walks through the results of the survey.
... Web services definied by machine to machine: Agreement - Yes.
... Web services definied by URI: General agreement - YES.
... WS definied by http: Agreement - Yes.
... WS can be defined in a manner to allow use of REST? Answers splitted - no agreement, tendency to rejection.
... WS using XML Infoset - some agreement.
... WS using SOAP: some agreement.

<MikeC> SOAP not a must; only when someone wants to add additional features like choreography, reliability etc.

<DavidB> WS should have a well-defined interface - Yes.
... WS should be based upon standards - Yes.

<MikeC> W3C standards?

<DavidB> That's the ambiguity.
... WS should use schema do describe the payload.
... WS should use WSDL.

<Roger> You mean implicitely WSDL 1.2. WSDL 1.2 doesn't exist, yet.

<MikeC> We are talking about the scope.

<DavidO> There is at least a couple of companies who believe that Web service do not exist unless there is a machine readable description/definition of a Web services

<DaveH> This relates to the question: Does a resource exisits if there is no identifier available that describes that resource, for example the WSDL.

<MikeC> Walks through the draft aganda for the f2f - see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2003Jul/0041.html
... We should talk about the strategic direction of the WSA WG; the WSA WG is chartered for 6 more months.

<All> no objections.

<MikeC> Not sure whether reliable messaging should be dealt with at this time due to the political situation.
... Somebody willing to become champion for the relable messaging piece? DaveO?

<DaveO> No, because of lack of time.
... Update on the TAG document work. Various sections of the doc are currently under reconstruction by TAG. Suggests to wait for the next draft of the document.
... TAG work is based upon the assumption of a HTTP-based architecture of Web serives, but there is a clear understanding that there are application-specific protocols and interface might be used. Hopeful there will be soon (September?) a document available for review.

<FrankM> Brief update on W3C WS Choreography work. No broad understanding whether compositions belong under thde scope of the Choreography WG.

<MikeC> WSA intends to adopt the defintions and results of the Choreography WG.

<Eric> Interested in services oriented architecture.

<Katia> Interested in agents part. Suggests to move the discussion of this topic to the f2f.

<Topic> Brief dicussion on logistics for the F2F -

<MikeC> wireless access might be available, group dinner is planned and will be annouced at f2f.

Summary of Action Items