WS Architecture
Teleconference
23 Oct 2003
See also: IRC
log
Attendees
Present: Abbie Barbir,
David Booth, David Orchard, Eric Newcomer, Gerald Edgar, Martin Chapman, Mike
Mahan, Paul Denning, Sinisa Zimek, Ugo Corda, Yinleng Husband, Zulah
Eckert
Regrets: Frank McCabe,
Hugo Haas, Katia Sycara, Mario Jeckle, Suresh Damodaran
Chair: MikeC
Scribe:
Ugo
Contents
- Approval of
Minutes
- Review of Action
Items
- Discovery
(David)
- Intermediaries, SOAP/WSDL
mismatch (Mike / Mike)
- Security model (Abbie,
Frank, Katia, Hugo
- Privacy (Mike
M?)
- Overall clarity,
consistency
- F2F agenda
suggestions
- Reliability, reliable
messaging (Hao)
- List of
Specifications
Approval of
Minutes
<dbooth> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/3/10/2003-10-16-ws-arch.htm
... (minutes approved)
Review of
Action Items
<dbooth>
ACTION: Zulah and Heather to have proposed Management Note
draft ready for WG to consider at next F2F [PENDING]
<dbooth>
ACTION: dbooth to reference current semantics work (DAML-S,
OWL-S) in discovery section [DONE]
... [Status/Discussion of "needed to declare victory" items]
Discovery
(David)
<dbooth>
I have not checked in the new discovery text.
<Mike>
How do we put content into editors’ draft? Frank is traveling this
week.
<Eric>
I have some notes to add too.
<MikeM>
I also have to check in some privacy text.
<Mike>
New materials must be published by next Wednesday, so that people have them
available before F2F.
<dbooth>
ACTION: dbooth to check in new Discovery and Intro sections
to CVS
<dbooth>
ACTION: dbooth to remind editors to check in changes so that
people can get the full current draft [DONE]
Intermediaries, SOAP/WSDL mismatch
(Mike / Mike)
<Ugo> I sent
response to Hugo’s message pointing out what I think is the basic
disconnect between WSDL and SOAP Intermediaries. Hugo’s note is fine,
but needs more emphasis on current disconnect.
<dbooth> WSD
recognizes current mismatch. I will contact WSD again.
<DaveO> A problem
statement needs to be put on paper before discussions can meaningfully
continue.
<dbooth>
ACTION: MikeM and Ugo to write up problem statement about
SOAP intermediaries and WSDL
Security
model (Abbie, Frank, Katia, Hugo)
<Abbie> I am working
on it. I will send new text to the group next week.
<Zulah> I am working
on management model, and I will prepare new draft by Wednesday next
week.
<dbooth>
ACTION: Zulah and Abbie to get together about security and
management text
Privacy (Mike
M?)
<MikeM> I sent the
new text to the list. Text is pretty ready to be added to main document.
Frank already reviewed it and rearranged text to fit latest document
format.
<dbooth> Mike's
privacy text: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Oct/0066.html
Overall
clarity, consistency
<Eric> I have some
notes on consistency that I am going to discuss with the editors group and
then add.
<dbooth>
ACTION: dbooth to make the diagrams narrower to fit on
printed page
F2F agenda
suggestions
<Mike> If you plan
to attend by phone, please specify in registration form.
<dbooth> hao, will
you be calling in?
<Hao> yes
<mchampion>
ACTION: Chairs will ping Katia on status of OWL discussions
at F2F
<Mike> The main
focus of F2F will be on the items recently appearing on the agenda as number
4. Plus discussions on what is needed to bring the document to reasonable
shape.
<Zulah> No chance I
will be able to prepare the stake holder section part before F2F. I’ll
need two hours for management presentation.
<mchampion>
ACTION: Chairs will put 2 hours for management discussions
at F2F
<Paul> One
additional item for discussion could be the issue about service identifiers,
i.e. URI vs. Qname, target resources, etc.
<Mike> That is not
necessary for declaring victory.
<dbooth> That issue
has already been discussed within WSD. Our corresponding action item should
be dropped.
<Hao> I will send
the use cases document to Hugo to format and check in before
F2F
<Mike> If people
cannot check in new text, send URL to the list in preparation for
F2F.
Reliability,
reliable messaging (Hao)
<Hao> I took
definition from what was agreed during last F2F
<Roger> I disagree
on definition. What we have now just defines what does not happen. It misses
the intent of actually delivering the message.
<mchampion> "The
goal of reliable messaging protocols is to increase the probability that both
ends have the same understanding of the state of the transmission"
... Nah, that still falls into the trap Roger has pointed out.
<Roger> I sent two
other ways of defining it to the list.
<dbooth> I agree
with Roger’s second definition.
<Hao> I agree with
the second definition too.
<dbooth>
ACTION: Hao to incorporate Roger's proposed definition for
Message Reliability
... Roger's proposed definition was:
... [[
... "Message
... <dbooth> reliability is the degree of certainty that a message will
be delivered
... <dbooth> and that sender and recipient will both have the same
understanding of
... <dbooth> the delivery status"
... ]]
<yinleng> Can we
paraphrase it to "Message reliability is the common degree of certainty
understood by both sender and recipient that a message will be delivered"?
<Mike> Reliability
also relates to other aspects, e.g. transactions. Notion of service
reliability.
<Hao> Also
availability of server (management implication)
<mchampion>
ACTION: Group should consider the various aspects of "web
service reliability" and note any aspects that we haven't covered in one of
the models.
List of
Specifications
<Mike>
No news on Daniel’s database. Probably he won’t be able to do
it because of other responsibilities. Martin can start with Roger’s
list, and Paul will add a few items.
<Eric>
Main issue is with open standardization activites vs. those that are
conducted under copyright.
<Mike>
How about using the taxonomy from article I sent to the list? See http://weblogs.java.net/pub/wlg/582.
<DaveO>
Open vs. closed is unclear in many cases. There are many different criteria
for openness. I suggest we don’t categorize.
<Roger> I have to
go. I agree with David that the distinctions are extremely difficult and
murky.
<Eric> What is
important is that control is not kept by single vendor, and standard work is
done free of IP encumbrance.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW]
ACTION: MikeM and Ugo to write up problem statement about
SOAP intermediaries and WSDL
[NEW] ACTION: Group should consider the
various aspects of "web service reliability" and note any aspects that we
haven't covered in one of the models.
[NEW] ACTION: dbooth to make the diagrams
narrower to fit on printed page
[NEW] ACTION: Hao to incorporate Roger's
proposed definition for Message Reliability
[NEW] ACTION: Chairs will ping Katia on
status of OWL discussions at F2F
[NEW] ACTION: Chairs will put 2 hours for
management discussions at F2F
[NEW] ACTION: Zulah and Abbie to get
together about security and management text
[NEW] ACTION: dbooth to check in new
Discovery and Intro sections to CVS
[PENDING] ACTION: Zulah and Heather to have
proposed Management Note draft ready for WG to consider at next F2F
[DONE] ACTION: dbooth to reference current
semantics work (DAML-S, OWL-S) in discovery section
[DONE] ACTION: dbooth to remind editors to
check in changes so that people can get the full current draft
$Date: 2003/10/29 15:36:21 $