Oasis WS BPEL
Technical Committee
Minutes of
Quorum reached at
Doug Knowles and Phil Rossomando to record minutes.
Accepting minutes of
meetings:
Motion by Phil to accept face-to-face minutes, seconded by Yaron; accepted with no objection.
Motion by Peter to accept 4/14 minutes, seconded by Frank; accepted with no objection.
- Plans for next face-to-face
- Subgroup reports: liaison, use case, issue coordination, specification editing, implementation
- Issue discussions
Next
face-to-face:
Proposed meeting dates (Tuesday 6/22, Wednesday 6/23, and Thursday 6/ (half day) overlap WfMC meeting (also on West coast). Diane suggests opening a ballot proposing to shift the dates to later in the week. Mike Marin (FileNet) moves to open ballot, no second; proposal fails. Martin Chapman reports that Oracle may be able to host the meeting (awaiting confirmation).
Diane notes discussions taking place for managing face-to-face votes when quorum is not present; Diane will collect alternatives (suggestions welcome) and present at a later time. Possibilities include scheduling votes for fixed times for telephone attendees, or defining each day as a separate meeting (meaning non-participants would risk membership status).
Subgroup reports:
Liaison subgroup: no report
Use case subgroup (John Evdemon): Monica, David Webber, and John all actively working on cleaning up use cases; Yin-Leng is adapting some HP internal use cases; John working on mapping from CEFACT BCF. Phil & Frank to work on abstract implementations.
Issue coordination (Diane): Diane raised the topic of handling issues submitted from a prospective member. After some discussion, Yaron proposed that Peter be empowered to accept such issues at his discretion as a member, and defer in-doubt issues to next meeting of the full committee. Accepted without objection.
Specification editing (Satish): With a substantial number of issue resolutions incorporated into the draft spec, Satish encouraged the entire group to review draft currently posted for ambiguities or clarity issues. To that end, Diane proposed a vote on the next call (May 12th) to accept current draft. In response to a question from Phil Rossomando, Satish stated that the current draft incorporates all issue resolutions before the dace-to-face, and that no resolutions since then are believed to require a spec update.
Implementation subgroup: deferred.
Issue Discussion:
Issues 48, 25, 33, 30 and 53-59: four ballots following up decisions made at the last face-to-face are closing today. All proposals are passing with “yes” votes; results available on web site. Kevin has questions on issue 33. After discussion it was decided that the question involves clarification of wording which can be done by the spec editing team, of which Kevin is a member. If this is not the case, he may ask to re-open it.
Issue 37: still in active discussion, no action taken. Will be discussed on next call.
Issue 90: Kristofer moves proposed solution, Peter seconds. Put to vote after objections: 6 yes, 18 no. Yaron moves to close w/ no action; Satish seconds. Motion to close with no action carries with no objections.
Issues 91 & 97 (and 99): Are related to and may be subsumed by issue 107, for which Yaron will submit a proposal for vote for next meeting.
[Minutes turned over to Phil Rossomando]
WSBPEL TC Meeting
Quorum 11:15 AM.
Doug Knowles and Phil Rossomando agree to do minutes. (Note – there is some overlap in the minutes for the first half included below.)
Motions to accept minutes from the face to face meeting and last conference call were passed.
Agenda reviewed and accepted.
First topic is next f2f.
2 weeks ago the TC voted to hold the next f2f on Tues Jun 22nd, - Thurs June 24th. May have conflict with WFMC meeting.
Suggest changing time of meeting.
Yaron raised concern about changing schedule to address the needs of one or two.
General discussion of reschedule Sid and Martin.
Diane will put up a Web ballot to decide on dates if there is interest in avoiding the conflict.
Yaron: Is anyone on call requesting group open up meeting dates.
Mike Murray from Filenet makes motion to change the date. No one seconded.
Motion failed - will stick with date.
Martin will see if his company can sponsor the f2f.
Liaison Subgroup Reports:
None
Use Case Subgroups
John: mentioned we will be talking about abstract BPEL.
Phil said he would be getting the
ABSTRACT meeting going.
Monica working on another use case.
Ying Ling will be writing Use Cases.
Any Use Case available should be volunteered by members.
John: Clarification of ABSTRACT BPEL is important.
Diane: How do we handle issues that are not raised by official members?
Peter (Issue Editor): Raised issue.
Yaron: Says Peter has unilateral capability to decide if an issue is relevant and raise it in a formal setting.
Specification Editing Sub-group Report:
Sadish: We’ve been trying to keep up with issue state. Think about all loose ends.
Sadish: Give responsibly to Yaron.
Yaron: Working on issue 75.
Sadish: Mentioned Yaron said 25 new issues are pending to be submitted.
Sadish: Looking for comments on latest draft of BPEL Specification.
Diane: In two weeks will have vote on whether the current draft should be the latest working draft.
Diane: Makes proposal to accept draft in two weeks. Comments or Questions?
Diane: Silence is approval. Silence… Motion approved.
Sadish: Incorporates all issue resolutions since before the face-to-face. But none after that meeting.
Read spec and be ready for comment.
Implementation Subgroup:
Diane: No call this week.
Issues:
Four ballots out standing due to close in 12 minutes.
If you don’t vote you loose good standing. Have to participate in 2 out of three votes.
Diane: Either or Situation for good standing membership. 1. Attend meetings or vote.
Issue 78: 78% yes issue passes.
Issue 25: 98% yes, 2% abstentions 97% voting. Passed
Issue 33: 91% yes 7% no 20% abstentions passed
Issue 30 and 53 through 59. 100% yes. Passed
Kevin: Wants to talk about issue 33. Feels lack of clarity.
Ben: Wording is not clear on issue 33.
Kevin will reopen if need be.
Issue 37 raised by Diane:
Diane: Is Yuzo available? No Answer
Vote deferred until Yuzo on phone … no objections.
Issue 90: Ready to proceed?
Chris Christopher says most people against issue 90. Propose a vote.
Diane: Motion by Diane, Seconded by … Tony Fletcher.
Diane: Discussion?
Satish: No point to discuss further. Issues has been discussed to death.
URIs are no-portable.
Dieter: Agrees with Satish.
Diane: Asks for objections to proposed resolution. 2
Phone Poll taken: 6 yes and 18 no. Balance obsessions
Satish: Questions the phone vote approach to resolving issues where multiple people in the office. Diane explains she can tell where there are multiple people on a line and adds them in after the phone poll. Results will be circulated in minutes – if anyone sees an problem with the results, we can re-do the vote.
Yaron proposes we close issue 90 with no action and Sadish seconds.
Diane: Objections to close issue 90 with no change? No objections, proposal accepted.
Diane: Should we vote on 91 and
97, 99 or should we discuss issue 107 further. Yaron
proposes we vote on this issue at next meeting.
Diane: Issue 101: Proposal to vote from Danny van der Rijn.
Diane: Described proposal.
Yaron: Makes proposal. Tony Fletcher seconds it. This issues involves just cleanup.
Diane: Other comments?
Diane: Objections? No 101 passes.
Diane: Issue 117 Discussion. Proposed resolution from 22/04 email. Described proposal.
Diane: Make motion on this: Sadish makes motion Ben seconds.
Sadish: Simple change.
Diane: Objections to accept proposal as is? 117 Passes.
Diane: Checks for any other issues for voting before proceeding.
Diane: Ron Ten Hove do you want to discuss issue 34.
Ron: WS Addressing issue. Monica has detailed presentation. Three parts. Business and technical.
Ron: Transitive closure of all licensing terms. Can’t implement WS Addressing without considering implications of other referenced specs. Second problem relates to stability. Had to insure backwards compatibility.
Technical side of issue. Although meant to be binding neutral, it is actually very binding specific. Focuses only on Soap. There are alternatives to WS Addressing (i.e., Message Delivery).
Pretty easy out. Change spec from we need WS Addressing to simply specify what we need. Will allow us to stay out of recommending that you have to have Soap. What does tech committee recommend?
Monica and Ron would be happy to provide specific proposal if indicated by discussion.
Alex: WS Addressing is not a hard core requirement on BPEL. JSR 7 has same implication that WS Addressing is not a compulsory.
Paco and Maciej on queue.
Paco: Raises stability concerns. What does BPEL need to map to WS addressing.
Maciej: We shouldn’t even mention the binding requirements in the spec.
Ron: Specification should contain the requirements that motivated us to mention WS Addressing.
Maciej: May make sense to show how binding to realizations occurs. Let this issue sit for a while to see which way the wind blows. Things are very dynamic.
Ron: Hopefully, our requirements will remain stable.
Sid: Asks Paco a question. Do you have an update on WS Addressing?
Paco: There is intent to submit to a standards body.
Sid: Not just BPEL so issues are common to other applications.
Paco: Strong feeling within IBM to have WS BPEL submitted to a standards committee.
Ron: Paco Question: Is there intent to summit.
Paco: Yes. No intention of keeping Addressing outside of the standards process.
Alex: Is there a schedule for submission to a standards Body?
Paco: No. Decision is not only up to IBM.
Nick: Emphasize fact that although addressing may become a standard need alternative ways. Should clarify in spec. Don’t have same problem going forward.
Diane: This is work in progress so it is difficult to reach a conclusion.
Kristopher: Should remove any references to WS Addressing in speck. Need to have requirements but not mention WS Addressing specifically.
Alex: From technical perspective we don’t want forget about mentioning WS Addressing. Should come up with proposal pretty soon to clarify issue.
Sid: Quick Comment in week or 2 could we say when the definitive time for submittal.
Paco: Can’t do that because doesn’t have control.
Alex: Even if we know a date. Cannot put in spec. Months to become a finalized spec. shouldn’t give one spec privilege over other.
Maciej: Concerned about what we are discussing relative to standards release. Should we be worrying about this at all?
Sid: Kind of agrees. BPEL spec is going to be used in conjunction with other things. Need framework. Go in cycles we seem to have tunnel vision. We’re not an island. We can’t continue postponing this issue. Work on an alternative should be done but this is time consuming. By which time the WS Addressing will be available.
Ron: Interoperability issues. Going beyond abstract issues. TC in past has tried to stay away from that. It’s been someone else’s concern. Shouldn’t be concerned with protocols.
Diane: Ron, the Ball is in your
court. Monica and Ron to come up with the requirements to
replace the specification of WS Addressing.
Diane: Time line?
Ron: Proposal out by middle of next week.
Diane: Issue discussion complete. We’ll quickly review status of action items that came out of Waldorf dissuasions. Issue 75 – Yaron plans to send a summary soon and will work on a proposal for issue 83 after.
Issue 108 is Dieter R.’s action item – Diane will check with him. Issue 101 solution is out. Martin is to work on an alternative proposal for issue 11. Alex opened his mouth and got nominated for more work in this area. J
Issues 4: Ivana working on issue and hopes to send out new version of proposal before next conference call.
New Business:
No
Alex motions adjourn. Seconded by XXX, no objection, meeting adjourned.