Web Services Architecture Working Group call
11 Dec 2003

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Contents

• Topics
  1. Review of Action items
  2. OWL Formalization
  3. Resource Oriented Model Diagram
• Summary of Action Items

Scribe: Meeting: WS Arch Teleconference

Review of Action items

Scribe: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2003Dec/0015.html

<Scribe> ACTION: Abbie writing text on security threats and resolution for document. Due next Wed. [DONE]

<Scribe> ACTION: Abbie to send security text to dbooth to insert into document

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Bijan to check if someone from U.Maryland has the resources to help WSA with OWL related work

<Scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Chair to schedule F2F Mon-Thu noon. Host confirms OK.

<Scribe> ACTION: MikeC to send JimHendler the call-for-participation link

Hugo: I sent feedback on Abbie's proposed text. Asked about adding text on delegation and federation. Abbie said yes.

Abbie: Please provide feedback on security text!

YinLeng: Abbie's work is for section 3. Zulah was going to put something into section 2 also. Should we have a security model in sec 2?

Scribe: ACTION: Abbie to review security in document and let YinLeng know whether to add section 2 security.

<Scribe> ACTION: Chair will schedule time to follow up on the question of whether we should do more run-time / processing model work [DROPPED]

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] dbooth to send a message to the WSD WG asking if two WSDL documents can reference the same service and therefore provide different views (or projections) of that same service

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] dbooth to clarify term "service provider" and "service requestor" and expand glossary

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] dbooth to look at security notes put on public list by Roger

<Scribe> ACTION: [DONE] DBooth to provide MikeC a list of WG members in good/bad standing

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] DBooth to reference the list of standards from 3.15 WS technologies in the stakeholders section [Waiting for Roger or PaulD to post the spec list to the public list]

dbooth: Waiting for Roger or PaulD to post the spec list to the public list.

Scribe: ACTION: [PENDING] fgm to check collation order of concepts

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Frank to add discussion on policies to service model

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Frank to discuss Features vs Concepts with Massimo and Katia

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Frank to move the last two paragraphs of "1.6.3 SOA and REST architectures" to the Semantics stakeholder section

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Frank to move these next two paragraphs to the Semantics stakeholder section

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Frank to propose text around architectural approach to semantics (intermediary visibility issue)

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Frank to re-draft Concepts and decide on Features VS Concepts

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Frank to resolve policy for the service model Security -> Actuall this means "add discussion"

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Frank will discuss with others how to refactor SOM to incorporate intermediaries properly

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Hao to incorporate Roger's proposed definition for Message

<Scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Hao to send a use case example to the list and ask for good use cases

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Hao to work with Hugo on getting Hao's CVS access set up

<Scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Hugo to provide boiler-plate message verbiage about WG members who have been absent and will be removed from the WG membership list unless they take action

<Scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Hugo to review Massimo's OWL and resolve issues in the document that Massimo points out

<Scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Hugo to talk to Daniel about Requirements document

<hugo> See my email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-wsa-editors/2003Dec/0000.html

Hugo: Requirements doc is ready to be republished

Scribe: ACTION: [DONE] Hugo will look into mechanics of inviting experts

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Katia to send comments on Discovery text to dbooth and list

<Scribe> ACTION: mchampion to follow up with eric what does he mean by "standard notation for Web Services contract" [DROPPED]

<Scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Mike C will contact Zulah to see if she wants to be an invited expert

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Mike to add and wordsmith text in 3.11 choreography

<Scribe> ACTION: [DONE] MikeC to incorporate all the Action items we didn't talk about into the minutes.

<Scribe> ACTION: [DROPPED] Mike to initiate a discussion about section 1.5.5 The Role of Humans to resolve the difference of opinions

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Mike to propose changes to WS Reliability section in stakeholders perspective

<Scribe> ACTION: [DROPPED] MikeC to see that MTF notes get done.

<Scribe> ACTION: YinLeng to supply pointer to the correct MTF text
... (Hugo offers to help YinLeng)

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] MikeC to check archives to find text we think we agreed to for message reliability & add it to the document

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] MikeC to look through section 1.7 Web Service Techologies ( http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/arch/wsa/wd-wsa-arch-review2.html#id2617682 ) for wording that was used in absence of a decision to use SOAP/WSDL

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] MikeC to propose changes to WS Reliability section in stakeholders perspective

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] MikeC to propose text to replace these next three paragraphs (and the diagram), to explain the difference between an SOA and a distributed system.

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] MikeC to schedule discussion of Roger's proposed stakeholder's perspective for EDI users

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] MikeM to look at security notes put on public list by Roger

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] PaulD to propose text on federation of registries

Katia: There's also peer-to-peer discovery.
... The "index versus registry" is in sec 3 but not 2.

PaulD: Also: Federated versus Choreography.

dbooth: GIven that we only have 4 telecons remaining, we need specific text proposed.

Scribe: ACTION: [DROPPED] (Who???) Refine correlation definition and verbiage to make it more clear how it relates to other concepts. [recorded in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2003Dec/att-0002/arch-03-11-20-public.html#item03 ]

<Scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Roger to send feedback on overall reliability

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Roger to go through & ensure he's OK with the latest list of standards

<Scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Ugo will draft statkeholders view of intermediaries

<Scribe> ACTION: dbooth to review Roger's text on EDI

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Yin-Leng to propose a new WS manageability section in stakeholders section (due by beginning of December)

<Scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Yin-Leng to Update section 2 discussion of management to be in synch with section 3

<Scribe> ACTION: MikeC to look through this section for wording that was used in absence of a decision to use SOAP/WSDL

MikeC: James Bryce(sp?) Clark from OASIS asked questions about WSA and EBXML.

dbooth: We don't have a champion for it.

Suresh: I was the original champion for it.

Roger: I care about it, but it's a little late.

<Roger> Here is the EDI text: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Nov/0005.html

Katia: We had a talk at a tech plenary.

<Roger> Here is the security text: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Nov/0004.html

MikeC: Anyone who wants to champion this should propose text.

Scribe: ACTION: Suresh to review doc and propose text on EBXML

OWL Formalization

<hugo> My emails: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-wsa-editors/2003Dec/0001.html
... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-wsa-editors/2003Dec/0003.html

Hugo: I sent reports to editors list.
... Lots of unclear cardinality. Fixable, but high cost to fix.
... Should they be 0 or 1, only 1, 1 or more, etc.
... Massimo found an algorithm that works pretty well. I think we should leave it alone.
... Lots of relationships with undefined concepts. One interesting thing: Message is a concrete concept, but MEP is abstract. We had a gap: We were missing the instantiation of an MEP, which is a message sequence, so I added that concept.
... I looked at all the models.
... I noted (and sent email): There is confusion around task/goal/action.

Katia: I dont' think we should collapse them to "action". A goal isn't an action.

MikeC: Point of action is to do something in the real world.
... Don't need to decompose into task/goal/action.

Hugo: Difference between task and action is not clear.

Katia: I agree. And "goal" doesn't appear in the text. We talked about removing "goal". Frank and I consider it our bridge to higher level notions.

dbooth: Can we remove task or action?

Katia: No.

Scribe: ACTION: Katia to propose clarification of action/task/goal.

Hugo: I also clarified the connection between semantics and service description.
... Also merged choreography description and chor description language.

dbooth: Clarifying: Removing the concept of chor description language.

Scribe: (Group agrees)

<Roger> Hear, hear.

dbooth: I think editors should go ahead and make changes that they believe reflect the will of the group, and then ask forgiveness later.

Scribe: (group agrees)

Resource Oriented Model Diagram

Scribe: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Dec/0034.html

Suresh: What is the "service model" in the picture?

MikeC: I think this diagram is intended to reflect the will of our North Carolina F2F.

Scribe: (speculation that it means the service oriented model)

Roger: What's a "resource"?

MikeC: Whatever the TAG says it is.
... A service is a kind of resource.

Roger: This model is wonderful. It doesn't do anything. Leave it in there.

MikeC: This gives the relationship to the Web arch.

Katia: Notion of agent is missing.
... Service model has agent.

Scribe: ACTION: Katia to send email to Frank asking why agent is missing from his new Resource Model

PaulD: Why is discovery model in resource model?

Katia: Frank says you want to discover the resource, the URI associated with the resource.
... ALso, "person or organization" is also in the service model. So why isn't it inside the SOM box on this resource model diagram??
... It's a graphical inconsistency.

Roger: But the point is to show how this fits into the big Web context. The inconsistency is unimportant.
... We should work with DavidOrchard on this model.

Scribe: ACTION: MikeC to ping DavidOrchard for his input on the Resource Oriented Model

Summary of Action Items