Minutes of Conference Call November12 26, 2003

 

 

Minutes taken by Goran Olsson         Note: Goran and Doug both took notes for the full call so there are two sets here.   

Proposed Agenda

-Roll call/determine quorum
- Review/accept minutes from Nov. 12 meeting.
- Nomination/volunteers to take minutes for this call.
- Review agenda.
- Liaison subgroup report .
- Use case subgroup report .
- Requirements and Issues Coordination subgroup report.
- Specification Editing subgroup report.
- Implementation subgroup report.
- Issue discussion
Proposals to vote:  Issues 72 and 85.  Issue 74 may be voted if a proposal
is submitted in time.
Discussion candidates:  Issues 77, 75,
- New business
Agenda and details for face to face meeting

 

Roll call/determine quorum

 

Call to order 8:09 PST. We have quorum.
 

Review/accept minutes from Nov. 12 meeting

 

No objections to the minutes of the previous conference call; accepted.

 

 

Nomination/volunteers to take minutes for this call

 

Minutes will be taken by Doug Knowles in the first hour and Goran Olsson the second hour. 

 

 

Review agenda

 

No suggestions to the proposed agenda; agenda accepted.

 

 

Logistics for F2F

 

There are flights to local airport Melbourne from Atlanta.

There is a 55 min to an hour drive from Orlando to Melbourne.

We have a block

of 20 rooms available at the Hilton Melbourne Rialto Place.  The rooms

are $99 a night and the hotel is located approximately one half mile

from the Identitech office.

 

Alternatively, there are a number of oceanfront hotels available for a

few more dollars per night (the Hilton is not oceanfront).

 

 

There will be telephone connections for people not present at F2F.

Agenda 8:30 or 9:00  start each day. We expect to end 2:30 on second day.

 

Liaison subgroup report

 

No new news. Some further information will be made available at the F2F.

Rarish  Martin Chapman req 10 at F2F for report on WS-CAF F2F next week will discuss liaisons there.

 

David: BCM discussed to get some stuff to BPEL group.

 

 

 

 

 

Use case subgroup report

 

John Evdemon reported.No call last week. Some use cases will be presented at F2F. Including a rosettaNet scenario. Monica presented a Travel Agent Booking scenario that may be used or not, may be too complex.

 

Dave Webber requested update to general list when updates are made to use cases. Also reported on his work on BCM and BPEL mapping. Will post on his web site.

 

 

Requirements and Issues Coordination subgroup report

 

No new news Discussed the F2F agenda. No other comments.

 

 

Specification editing subgroup report

 

A new version will be uploaded shortly. Closed issues are now in the spec. Paco reported.  Diane: a version with new content was uploaded last week. Further work is underway on editing changes.  Editorial pass will be complete by Dec. 3 and that version will be reviewed for approval by the TC at the F2F.

 

 

 

Implementation subgroup report

 

Excerpts from Diane’s mail on subgroup’s plans for F2F:

The implementation subgroup will be holding a "showcase" during the face
to face meeting on Dec. 9-10.   Participation is open to all TC members.
Exact time will be available when the agenda is finalized.  The intent of
this showcase is to illustrate implementations of BPEL to exercise the
spec and provide validation/expose problems in it to support the TC's
work.  This is a set of informal trials for development purposes, and is
not a conformance test, nor a complete test of spec functionality.  It
does not necessarily use finalized elements of the TC's specification,
which is still in development.  Members are encouraged to employ
early-stage builds in order to test both the spec and their
implementations.  There is no plan for a public announcement of the event
or any results by the TC and members are requested not to issue a press
release based on it.   Some further guidelines developed by the subgroup
are:
---- implementations will not become part of the BPEL specification.
---- it is a event for the TC.  Any member may participate or observe, and
may bring colleagues working on their implementations.  Others will not be
invited.
---- it is intended to be a work session and not a demo.  Implementations
may not be complete, work may be required to complete scenarios, etc.
---- to the extent possible, proposed scenarios for testing will to be
shared ahead of time and there may be web based testing available.
---- it is intended as a friendly, collaborative event.
---- implementation may be prototypes or proofs of concept.  They do not
need to be products and there is no assumption that any will become
products.
---- implementations will be for the use of the TC for the above purpose,
and there will be no licenses to use the implementations outside the TC or
for any other purpose.
---- confidential information (eg, source code and other implementation
details) should not be disclosed.

Diane requests heads up if someone is bringing showcases to F2F. No press releases are planned for the F2F.

 

 

Issue Discussion

 

Proposals to vote:  Issues 72 and 85. 

 

Issue 72 What to do with WS-I BP1.0?

 

Proposed resolution:
Given that the scope of BP is confined to the specifications it
references, and that BPEL is of wider application:
 
a) In developing the BPEL language, where reference is made to
specifications that are in BP 1.0 scope,  the BP 1.0 requirements will
normally be followed.
 
b) Where use-cases and use-case artifacts are in BP 1.0 scope (i.e.
using
referenced specifications) they will be BP 1.0 compliant, if possible.
 
c) All BPEL implementations SHOULD be configurable such that they can
participate in BP1.0 compliant interactions. A BPEL implementation MAY
allow the BP 1.0 configuration to be disabled, even for scenarios

encompassed by BP 1.0.

 

Motion to vote on proposed resolution

Second by Martin.

No objections.

Motion accepted and closed.

 

Issue 85 Multiple links with the same source and target

Proposal from Dieter:

In section 12.5, "Flow", add an explicit constraint to the specification
text that disallows multiple links to have the same source and the same
target.

 

Yaron requested vote delay. Offline discussions should follow.

 

Proposal to vote: issues 50 and 62.

 

These issues have suggested resolutions and proposals to vote, but late submittals.

 

50 Semantics for "dangling receive"

Proposal from Dieter:

A receive activity for an inbound request/response operation is said to be
*open* if that activity has been executed and no corresponding reply
activity has been executed.   A fault bpel:missingReply is thrown if the
process instance reaches the end of its execution, and one or more receive
activities remain open.  This fault indicates a modeling error that was not
detected by static analysis.

 

 

Vote delayed due to too short notice. No discussion today. Vote at F2F.

 

62 Event handlers and Serializable Scopes

Dieter’s Proposal:

If a serializable scope has an event handler associated with it, no
enclosed scope nor a scope in the body of the event handler can be
serializable. If a non-serializable scope has an event handler associated
with it, an enclosed scope as well as a scope in the body of the event
handler can be serializable.
 
I hope that's the English equivalent of the following:
 
Let's assume a scope S, an event handler E associated with S, a scope S-S
that is part of S, and a scope S-E that is part of E. Then the following
rules apply
   1. If S is marked variableAccessSerializable="yes", then neither scope
      S-S nor scope S-E can be marked with variableAccessSerializable
      ="yes".
   2. If scope S is marked variableAccessSerializable="no", scope S-E
       and scope S-S can be marked variableAccessSerializable="yes"
 

 

Yaron think this is reasonable proposal.

Goran requested that the vote is delayed due to too short notice. No discussion today. Vote at F2F.

 


Discussion candidates: 

 

 Issue 77 BPEL cannot handle some SOAP header bindings

 

Proposal from Ugo:

BPEL will also allow abstract messages not belonging to any portType definition to be associated with input and output variables in the invoke, receive and reply activities.

This issue was discussed at length without any clear consensus.

 

Some of the expressed thoughts, please excuse the incompleteness:

Ugo: Abstract and concrete parts. That it is allowed to have abstract messages not part of a port type. When binding a port type it does not mean to bind all the parts of a port type. You can bind abstract messages to messages on the wire.

Yaron supports Ugo’s suggestion. BPEL need way to access optional parts like soap header.

Yaron and Harvey: soap headers contain application data and must be made visible to the BPEL process .

Ugo: any port type part can be mapped to a header.

Peter: A solution can be to change WSDL when a binding changes.

Prasad: abstract that are not port parts must be bound to headers

             All port parts must appear on the wire.

Ugo:  Abstract messages are part of the interface.

Rania??? : When you make the process aware of what’s in the binding you’ll have

            problems.

             The process should not have to change as a result of diff. Binding. You should

            change WSDL if you want to change binding.

Yaron:  Sees problem with lack of optionality in WSDL. Proposes the mechanism for

             BPEL to allow missing parts in a message. Ability to send and receive missing

             parts.

 

Martin: Do not want BPEL to add new annotations to WSDL. There are problems with

             WSDL. Expect future to fix this. BPEL only looks at abstract. See no optional

              parts in BPEL. If it is in abstract then it is not optional.

Ugo:  Proposal does only adding some abstract components to interface. Are mapped to

          headers.

Paco: Our intention was that interface was a synonym of port type.

Yaron: Great sympathy for Martin’s position. Still his customers have such problems that

            they avoid WSDL. WSDL does not map soap properly. This is the basic problem.

            Soap model is more popular than WSDL. Compromising Soap would be a great

            mistake.

Prasad: Abstract level definitions but not part of a port type is also part of the interface.

 

Peter: Rewrite WSDL may or may not be necessary when binding changes.

 

 

 

Action: Diane will open a Web ballot for 12 days. Will close before F2F.

 

 

New Business:

 

Next phone TC would have been Dec 24. Cancelled. Next TC will be Jan 7

F2F  is on Dec 9-10

 

Agenda and details for face to face meeting

Discussions of F2F

 

Issues to discuss at the F2F after the use cases presentations


Left over topics from Sept. f2f:
Correlation  including 8, 26, 28, 29, 31, 33, 37 and 44. (issues
championed/opened by Satish, Assaf, Bernd, Yuzo)
Error handling and compensation  including 1, 25, 30. (issues
championed/opened by Dieter and Assaf)
WSDL, XML and related issues  11, 15 (issues championed/opened by Danny
and Paco)
Event handler issues  43  (issues championed/opened by Ram)

Suggestions on issues above 62 (last one included in the Sept. f2f) would
be welcome

New category
Coordination between processes - Including  Issues 2, 16, 30, 53-59, 10,
37, 78, 81, 25


The scenarios being drafted by the implementation subgroup and a use case
Monica and Sid are developing might provide insight on this topic.  We
decided to put these on the f2f agenda before discussing this category.

We'd like a moderator for each major category we will be discussing.  The
role of this person would be to frame the discussion, drawing out the
interrelationships between the individual issues, summarizing the
discussion and conclusions for the TC, and helping to identify follow up
activities.
To facilitate phone in participation, we'll try to schedule times in
advance to summarize and vote (where appropriate)

 

Motion to adjourn…seconded

9:41 PST EOM

 

 

Minutes of November 26, 2003 WS BPEL Conference Call

 

[Minutes taken by Doug Knowles]

 

Called to order at 16:08 GMT; 38 participants out of 62 members.

 

Minutes of November 12th meeting were accepted without discussion.

 

Proposed agenda accepted after moving “Logistics for face-to-face meeting” to first item.

 

Logistics for face-to-face

 

John Evdemon reported that a block of 20 hotel rooms have been secured at the Hilton Melbourne Rialto Place. Identitech’s web site has a page with other good lodging recommendations: http://www.identitech.com/company/lodging.htm .  A few members reported success scheduling reasonably priced flights into Melbourne via Atlanta. 

 

Agenda to start @ 8:30-9:00AM, ending about 2:30PM on 2nd day.

 

It appears that the last flight out of Melbourne (at least for west coast connections?) is at about 3:30; later flights available out of Orlando.

 

Liaison Subgroup

 

Group will be seeking 5-10 minutes at face-to-face for an update.  Martin Chapman reported that WS Choreography(?) WG has a face-to-face meeting schedule next week (one week before BPEL’s), at which there will be discussion about the liaison with WS BPEL.  Martin also offered to provide an update on the WS-CAF TC at the face to face.

 

David Webber: there have been discussions on BCM TC about getting materials together for BPEL.

 

Use Cases Subgroup

 

No conference call last week.  Use case catalog will be completed for face-to-face, specific scenarios being prepared that sync with UN/CEFACT.  WSI supply chain, OIG scenarios not being worked on yet.  Monica identified complex travel agent booking scenario from CEFACT.

 

The group is looking for volunteers to assist with developing some new scenarios.

 

David Webber requested that notification be sent when cases posted. (BCM templates) He is working on a tool for generating BPEL from process descriptions and is building models from the use cases.

 

 

Requirements and Issues Coordination Subgroup

 

Last call focused on agenda for face-to-face, to be discussed later in this call.

 

Spec editing Subgroup

 

Editing team uploaded a version incorporating resolution of closed issues last week; now making an editorial pass to polish the language, to be completed and uploaded by December 3rd (goal); they will be seeking approval of that version at the face-to-face.

 

Implementation Subgroup

 

Reviewed scenarios, proposing an implementation showcase at face-to-face.  Members asked to review guidelines(?) for face-to-face.  Group is recommending that some work be done w/ implementation at face-to-face before proceeding to issues.  If anyone is preparing to bring demonstration materials to the face-to-face please notify Diane so accommodations can be made.

 

Please note that no publicity is planned by the BPEL TC surrounding the face-to-face, nor is any publicity by participants recommended.

 

Issue Discussions:

 

Issue 72:

 

Peter proposes closing proposal of 11/12, no email comments since then.  Martin seconded.  Accepted and closed.

 

Issue 85:

 

Dieter: proposes closing.  Goran not convinced banning multiple links is necessary, sees some potential utility.  Goran wants to consider it some more and pick up discussion via email.

 

Issue 50:

 

Goran suggests deferring vote since proposal is only one day old and hasn’t had time to review.  Will be voted on at face-to-face

 

Issue 62:

 

A few comments favorable to the proposed resolution; vote deferred to provide time for review.

 

 

 

Issue 77:

 

A vote on the Ugo’s proposed resolution was deferred because the email discussion is still active.  Ugo will not be present at face-to-face, but will try to present and discuss proposal via telephone participation. 

 

An animated discussion of the issue ensued.  There was agreement about the nature of the problem posed by WSDL, but no consensus about an appropriate remedy that addresses tradeoffs between compatibility with legacy web services/common usage vs. integrity of BPEL.

 

The discussion was terminated due to time constraints.  A web ballot will be opened on the proposal with a 12-day voting window to provide the maximum amount of time for members to review the issue and still close the vote before the face to face.

 

New business

 

Next conference call (after the December face-to-face) would normally land on December 24th, which is likely to conflict with many vacations.  TC voted to cancel December 24th call; next conference call (after the face-to-face) will be January 7th, 2004.

 

Agenda for face-to-face:

 

Discussion of leftover issues from Sept face-to-face, grouped by category:

  • Error handling and compensation
  • Correlation
  • WSDL/XML related issues
  • Event handling
  • New issues (no particular category)
  • New category: Coordination between processes

 

Diane will forward a comprehensive list of issues by category.

 

Volunteers are needed for discussion moderators.

 

The schedule will include a 20 minute wrapup period for each category so phone participants who have trouble tracking the discussions can get caught up.

 

TC voted to adjourn at 17:41 GMT.