WS Architecture Teleconference
13 Nov 2003

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Contents

• Topics
  1. Approval of Minutes
  2. Review of Action Items
  3. Discovery
  4. Use Cases
  5. Intermediaries
  6. Reliability, reliable messaging
  7. Security model
  8. Privacy
  9. Overall clarity, consistency
  10. Draft message on intermediaries to WSD group ?
  11. Strategy for completing our document
• Summary of Action Items

Approval of Minutes

Scribe: Oct 30 minutes approved: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/3/10/2003-10-30-ws-arch.htm

Review of Action Items

Scribe: ACTION: David and Roger to clarify step 3 of section "1.5.6 The Process of Engaging a Web Service" [PENDING]

<Scribe> ACTION: David to refactor "1.5.6 The Process of Engaging a Web Service" [PENDING]

<Scribe> ACTION: dbooth to make the diagrams narrower to fit on printed page [DONE]

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

<Scribe> ACTION: Paul Denning to merge in important specs missing in Roger's list [DONE]

<mitrepauld> that merge was done to a large extent
... Roger is cleaning it up some more.

Scribe: ACTION: Hugo to clean up "1.6.3 SOA and REST architectures" [DONE]

<Scribe> ACTION: MikeC to ping Bijan about UMD providing help on ontologies

<mitrepauld> Frank: automated link between ontology and doc not yet workable; need better tools

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

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

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

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

<Scribe> ACTION: DAvid, Zulah to create text to communicate with MTF regarding this [DROPPED]
... (the above is a duplicate item)

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

<Scribe> ACTION: David will find new home for 3.4.3 Trust and Discovery & point to it from Discovery [PENDING]

<Scribe> ACTION: DBooth to reference the list of standards from 3.15 WS technologies in the stakeholders section [PENDING]

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

<mitrepauld> semantic distinction between Features and Concepts is fuzzy

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

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

<mitrepauld> "Feature" in WSDL 1.2 (and SOAP 1.2)

Scribe: ACTION: Frank to resize meta.png [PENDING]

<Scribe> ACTION: Frank to resolve policy for the service model [PENDING]
... :
... Frank to see if deleted text about syntax & semantics in introduction
... should move to stakeholders semantics section

<Scribe> ACTION: Frank to see if deleted text about syntax & semantics in introduction should move to stakeholders semantics section [PENDING]

<Scribe> ACTION: 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 [PENDING]

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

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

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

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

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

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

<Scribe> ACTION: Roger to contact Abbie and see if he will work on an enumerated list of security threats [PENDING]

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

<Scribe> ACTION: Zulah to give dbooth her suggestions regarding "Trust and Discovery" [DROPPED]
... http://www.w3.org/2003/11/05-ws-arch-irc.txt
... http://www.w3.org/2003/11/06-ws-arch-irc.txt
... http://www.w3.org/2003/11/07-ws-arch-irc.txt
... (above URLs are IRC logs of F2F)

<mitrepauld> zulah: section 3 treatment of ws manageability must follow solid section 2 treatment of ws manageability
... policy in service model
... zulah: we can model management as a quality of a service
... MC: Are management sections in WSA a sketch of a NOTE by MTF?
... zulah: Feedback from WSDM TC unlikely

Scribe: ACTION: Zulah to propose a new WS manageability section in stakeholders section (due by beginning of December) [PENDING]

<mitrepauld> Yin Leng: MTF status?

Zulah: The WG agreed to put out the MTF work as a W3C Note.
... I have an action with Hugo to do that.

YinLeng: I could help with the Management sec 3.

Zulah: When I get a draft, I'll pass it by you and Hao.

<mitrepauld> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Nov/0029.html

Zulah: Manageability model in sec 2 is at a higher level than the MTF work. It expresses the relationship between a WS and the quality of being manageable.

<mitrepauld> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Nov/0030.html
... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Nov/0028.html
... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Mar/att-0001/W3c.Mtf.WSInstance.20030229.htm

Scribe: zulah's message on new management model: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Nov/0003.html

<mitrepauld> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Oct/0093.html
... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Nov/0003.html

<Roger> I'm having trouble talking.

Scribe: ACTION: dbooth and zulah to compose 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 [IN_PROGRESS]

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

<Scribe> ACTION: Frank will complete action from last F2F to add body/content to mind map and text for MOM [PENDING]

<mitrepauld> dbooth, we expect WSD to say that any number of WSDL can describe the same service (from different viewpoints), right?

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

<Scribe> ACTION: Frank will remove intermediary from MOM [PENDING]
... paul, that's my hope

<Scribe> ACTION: Hugo to set up a poll about length of f2f in January [DONE]
... Poll on length of F2F: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2003Nov/0018.html

<Scribe> ACTION: Hugo to talk to Janet about possible promotion of our Note [PENDING]

<Scribe> ACTION: chairs will determine what we decided on refactoring the SOM at the North Carolina F2F, contact the owner of the action item to see if it will be completed quickly, and reassign it if not [DONE]

<Scribe> ACTION: MikeC to schedule time to discuss Hao's refactoring of SOM and assign someone to put it in the document

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

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

<Roger> I put a note on the list. Did anybody read it?

<fgm> read it

<Roger> I'm awake anyway.\

<mitrepauld> not yet

<fgm> I also read your proposed stakeholders section

<mitrepauld> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Nov/0004.html

<Roger> Right.
... You might want to include some of that text in the absence of something better.
... Abbie, and he is not being very responsive.
... No.

MikeM: On yesterday's editor's meeting, I said I would pick up some of the security text in Abbie's absence.

<Roger> Thank you.
... That's what it needs -- an expert.

Scribe: ACTION: MikeM to look at security notes put on public list by Roger

<Scribe> ACTION: fgm to check collation order of concepts to ensure they're in alphabetical order [PENDING]

<Scribe> ACTION: Roger to write a stakeholder's perspective for EDI users [DONE]

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

<yinleng> Sorry, have to leave early.

Scribe: Section 1.7: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/arch/wsa/wd-wsa-arch-review2.html#id2617682

<Scribe> ACTION: 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

Discovery

<mitrepauld> ACTION: Paul to add something about Federation to Discovery
... DBooth will be moving most of "Process of Engaging a WS" from the intro to into discovery section.

Scribe: ACTION: Katia to review latest Discovery text

Use Cases

<mitrepauld> Katia: use cases? in appendix?
... MC: hao to work with w3t to get cvs access

MikeC: We plan to publish a new version of the Use Case document when Hao gets it done.

<mitrepauld> hao: atomic scenarios ...
... ... not usable

Hao: Some of the atomic scenarios are not usable.

Roger: There are also atomic scenarios that are missing.

<mitrepauld> Roger: atomic scenarios missing, eg, EDI
... ... tracking

Roger: In my EDI text, I mention use cases that are not in the Use Case document.

MikeC: Can you send an example to the list?

Scribe: ACTION: Hao to send a use case example to the list and ask for good use cases

Paul: The latest editor's copy is dated May.

MikeC: Yes, Hao is working with Hugo to get the new draft checked-in to CVS.

<mitrepauld> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Sep/0076.html

ROger: Is the Use Case doc shorter?

Hao: Should be longer. I added links.

MikeC: But part of the task was to cut it down.

Hao: Yes, I'll cut it down after getting CVS working.

Intermediaries

<mitrepauld> dbooth: WSD discussed intermediaries today. We don't need to alert them, but may offer an opinion. They've recorded an issue about intermediaries, and will come back to it later.

Scribe: Look in today's agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0091.html
... Intermediaries thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Oct/0331.html
... It was discussed on today's teleconference.
... Today's WSD meeting IRC: http://www.w3.org/2003/11/13-WS-Desc-irc.txt

<mitrepauld> Does WSD have a requirement to describe SOAP intermediaries?

MikeC: We should figure out what we want to say about intermediaries.

<mitrepauld> WSD REQTS http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/requirements/ws-desc-reqs.html
... R031

Scribe: ACTION: Ugo to draft stakeholder's view of intermediaries

<mitrepauld> "The WG specification(s) SHOULD support SOAP 1.2 intermediaries. "

Reliability, reliable messaging

Hao: I proposed text on reliable messaging.

<mitrepauld> Hao: multiple levels

Hao: It was reviewed in NC, then I proposed changes.

MikeC: Editors need to harvest those threads and put them in the document. Is the document ok on this?

Roger: I tried to look at it from other perspectives also, in terms of business transactions. Tracking comes up.

<mitrepauld> Roger: biz transactions - other issues such as tracking
... frank: harvesting not done

Hao: We should finish the text on reliable messaging first, before the rest of reliability.

MikeC: Perhaps Hao can incorporate that text, once you have CVS working.

Security model

Scribe: MikeM working on this.

<Roger> Sorry, gotta go.

Privacy

Scribe: (MikeC will follow up with MikeC offline)

Frank: I think we're close to declaring victory on this.

Overall clarity, consistency

dbooth: We addressed that some at the F2F.

Draft message on intermediaries to WSD group ?

Scribe: No longer needed. It's on the WSD's issue's list.

Strategy for completing our document

<mitrepauld> MC: next telecons 1/2 time on 5 *Model sections

MikeC: I plan for us to go through the various models paragraph by paragraph.

<mitrepauld> One week at a time

MikeC: Next week we'll discuss Message Model.

Summary of Action Items