Web Services Architecture Working Group call
18 Dec 2003

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Contents

• Topics
  1. Approval of telcon minutes?
  2. Action Items:
  3. Security, policy, etc
  4. Resource Model
  5. Management
  6. EDI text.
• Summary of Action Items

<hugo> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2003Dec/0025.html

Approval of telcon minutes?

Scribe: Yup.

Action Items:

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

<mchampion> ACTION: dbooth to review Roger's text on EDI [DONE]

<mchampion> ACTION: Suresh to review doc and propose text on EBXML [PENDING]

<mchampion> ACTION: Katia to propose clarification of action/task/goal. [PENDING]

<mchampion> ACTION: MikeC to ping DavidOrchard for his input on the Resource [PENDING]

<mchampion> ACTION: Abbie to send security text to dbooth to insert into document [DONE]

Abbie: text provided by Roger talks about securiy, policy and privacy.
... My text talks about security aspect but not the other two.
... We seem to be mixing things in one section that should be separated.

Scribe: Booth: Text there now is a combination of text from various sources.

Abbie: Needs to be reorganized.

<mchampion> ACTION: Katia to send email to Frank asking why agent is missing from his ROM [DROPPED]

<mchampion> ACTION: YinLeng to supply pointer to the correct MTF text [DONE]

<mchampion> ACTION: Abbie to review security in document and let YinLeng know whether to add section 2 security [DROPPED]

<mchampion> ACTION: MikeC to send JimHendler the call-for-participation link [DONE]

<mchampion> ACTION: MikeC to look through section 1.7 [DROPPED]

<mchampion> ACTION: Yin-Leng to propose a new WS manageability section in stakeholders section [DONE]

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

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

<mchampion> ACTION: Frank to add discussion on policies to service model [DROPPED]

<mchampion> ACTION: Frank to resolve policy for the service model Security [DROPPED]

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

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

<mchampion> ACTION: Frank will discuss with others how to refactor SOM [PENDING]

<mchampion> ACTION: MikeM to look at security notes put on public list by [DONE]

<mchampion> ACTION: dbooth to send a message to the WSD WG asking if two WSDL documents can reference the same service

<mchampion> ACTION: dbooth to send a message to the WSD WG asking if two WSDL documents can reference the same service [DONE]

<dbooth> [DONE]

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

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

<mchampion> ACTION: MikeC to schedule discussion of Roger's proposed stakehodlers perspective for EDI users [DONE]

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

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

<mchampion> ACTION: fgm to check collation order of concepts [DONE]

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

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

<mchampion> ACTION: MikeC to check archives to find text we think we agreed to on message reliability [DROPPED]

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

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

<mchampion> ACTION: DBooth to reference the list of standards from 3.15 [DONE]

<mchampion> ACTION: MikeC to propose text to replace these next three paragraphs and the diagram about SOA and distributed objects [PENDING]

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

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

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

Security, policy, etc

Abbie: Should split discussion into two sections.
... Security and policy.
... Intertwined in definitions, but should be separated in stakeholders discussion.
... Other model diagrams: At one point Policy was added ... what happened to it?
... Policy can decide whether want reliable or secure delivery. Don't see in current figures.
... Frank did add at one point, but it seems to have disappeared.

Frank: Waffle, waffle.
... Which diagram? Message Model?

Abbie: Should be several places.

Scribe: ACTION: Abbie will send suggestions to Frank and public list for incorporation of policy into other models.

Mike: Resource model and Management model discussions ongoing -- defer to then.

Abbie: 2.3.2 - Service - needs policy, too.

Frank: Outstanding action item to relate policy to services, resources. The latest diagram for resource has policy, so service automatically gets it because it's a resource.

Resource Model

Frank: Denning raised issue of choreography = discovery.
... Frank thinks may need chor to describe discovery, but that they are fundamentally different concepts.
... Discovery put in resource model because discovering resources not services.
... Looking for things other than pointers to executable code. Maybe documents, etc. Generally discovery is about looking for things, and things are resources.
... If you put Discovery in service model don't cover all the bases.

<mchampion> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Dec/0034.html
... 38:<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Dec/0034.html>

Mike: What is service model box in the above diagram:

Frank: Meant to be range of actions you expect to be involved with discovering and publishing.
... Can redo diagram so that "publish" and "discover action" are just regular boxes.
... Consider that box deleted.

David: The way discovery service is described it doesn't include phone calls, it is confined to automated services.
... Phone calls are handled elsewhere as out-of-band.

<dbooth> Roger: I'm confused. You're talking about a discovery service, but what do you mean by service? UDDI is not a Web service.
... dbooth: Is UDDI described by a WSDL document, and does it communicate using SOAP?

Frank: UDDI is clearly a service. Might be a Web service.

Service: more abstract than Web service.

Gerald: UDDI is both service and Web service.

Mike: Katya was complaining about redundancy between resource and service models.

Frank: Resource model may be simplification of service model itself.
... Proposes revised resource diagram deleting service model box, and instead has discovery service containin resource descriptions.
... Can then simplify service model because no longer need identifier.

Roger: What about service description?>

Frank: Maybe.
... Service description counts as a resource description but has additional structure not found in every resource description.
... Like description of semantics and interface.

Mike: Wants to see the beef before discussing further.

Frank: Promises to do before tomorrow:

Scribe: ACTION: Frank will straighten out resource/service/description/publish, etc by tomorrow,

Management

Mike: Yin Leng has fulfilled action items and has sent various management texts.
... Also pointers to text the MTF would like to see published as notes.

Scribe: ACTION: Yin Leng will look at EDI tracking text and see if something about this should be put into the Management text.

Hugo: Read management concepts and relationships - concept of management interface mentioned but not defined. Not clear what it is.
... Relationship between management interface and service interface.
... Yin Leng: M-Int is-a S-Int.
... Open source Word viewer did not show diagram.

Scribe: ACTION: Editor to include text should put some precision around management interface.

David: Couldn't this be simplified? Do we need to specifically call out management semantics, interface and policy?
... Can we say that a manageable service is a kind of service, and so it inherits the things it needs?

Frank: Good idea.
... Yin Leng: If Web service does not offer an ADDITIONAL M-interface it is not a manageable service.

David: Does it need to be called out in the diagram.

<mchampion> ack

Frank: Current version is based on feedback from WSDM group. I think there's a disconnect between expectations of WSDM and what we think of as management.
... The way it is right now it seems vestigial.
... Managing a service = controlling the agent, service up and down, etc.
... That's the common view. Has to do with how service deployed. Not part of the architecture.
... BUt another aspect is providing capability for other people to control that service at the meta-level.
... May allow customers to control bandwidth, security policy, etc.
... That isn't in WSDM now.
... What is left is difficult to separate off from any other Web service. THe fact that two services are closely related is necessary but not only case.

David: In this view of managing have a management interface and client interacts just like interacts with Web service itself.
... Manageable service is a kind of service.
... Tomato selling service is a kind of service.
... With tomato semantics.
... Management service has management semantics.
... Don't need to call out explicitly.

Roger: Pairing of services is architectural. Or pairing of interfaces.
... Several people agree that "have two thingies, not one thingie" is architectural.

YinLeng: Must have an additional interface to handle management.
... Management model requires a management interface.
... WSDM has not said it needs to be a distinct management service.
... Need to have pairing. Normal interface + MGMT interface.

Paul: Does it imply different endpoints?
... Answer seems to be doesn't say.

David: Maybe we should just go with it rather than trying to simplify.

Mike: Agree.

Frank: Editorial note that could be reviewed.

Scribe: ACTION: Editor to address concerns about Management model redundancy with other parts of model in editorial note.

Paul: Life cycle stuff in Mgt interface?
... Yin Leng: Do we object to management service rather than management interface?

Mike: No, leave it and put editorial notes in capturing that this is not really clean.

<dbooth> ACTION: dbooth to incorporate Management text to document

Scribe: ACTION: David Booth to bring Management text into proper XML format.

EDI text.

Summary of Action Items