Minutes of the 26 January 2004 Web Services Architecture WG Face-to-Face Meeting ----------------------------------------------------------------- Morning of Jan 26, 2004 Scribe: Katia Sycara Present: Mike Champion, David Booth, Paul Denning, Hao He, Frank McCabe, Roger Cutler, Hugo Haas, Katia Sycara, Bijan Parsia. Roger proposed that we discuss global issues in the document. Roger suggests that we get rid of quotes in the document, not good style. David says this is not necessary. Discussion about whether the quotes must go. DavidB: objection noted and let us leave it to editors' discretion. Resolution: leave it to the editors' discretion to get the number of quotes down. Roger: eliminate all apologies. Resolution: as a principle we will not apologize, we will try to get rid of the apologies as we get to the text. Action item: DavidB takes the item to take a look and try to eliminate the apologies. Mike: creating a stakeholders' perspective for REST. Roger: section 1 is the weakest. It is good to have a good section 1 because it is the section people read first. Move section 1 to section 3 to stakeholders' perspective. Put in section 1 just a small explanation of how the rest of the documents reads. Section 1 has controversial things. Mike. Move all controversial things to section 3. Mike: when section 1 gets detailed and controversial, move it to section 3. Frank: avoid adopting any new action items. HaoH: many concepts are mentioned in different documents, so we can have refs to the usage document to the architecture document. MikeC: if you can do this by Thursday noon, then ok. MikeC: will the public mailing list continue to operate? Katia: we need to have a mechanism to put as appendixes MikeC: 3 appendices, OWL stuff, list of security specs,( have a paragraph disclaiming that there are personal opinions, and gives the URL of the e-mail message), list of general specs DavidB: I can take as action item the mechanical stuff of putting the message in an appendix. MikeC: proposal: we have a very short appendix that puts a disclaimer and references the e-mail. Roger: when we get there, we will decide. Katia: requirements document and usage document are not currently referenced. DavidB: how to reference them by URLs or as an appendix? Action item: DavidB has action item to add a section in the introduction to with the documents we want to reference. DavidB: to what extent do we need to say we are adding constraints? PaulD: let us do like the TAG did for the We architecture DavidB: let us delete the text about constraints, so we do not create false expectations. MikeC: let us delete the text about constraints Roger: the text reads more like the architecture has constrains, all the relationships in section 2 where we say, this must have that, it is a constraint. MikeC: we leave any language that implies constraints, but will get rid of anything in the intro that raises false expectations regarding constraints. DavidB: stakeholders' perspectives or viewpoints? Resolution: Everyone agrees on using "perspectives" Roger: some figures must be shrunk so they are readable HugoH: do something on editorial notes, ie do something or eliminate them. Resolution: as we go through, let us decide. Katia: there are some concepts that are not defined. MikeC: let us deal with them as we go through Now group goes through the document. Editors' list Remove Mike Mahan as an editor Added till "July 2003" for Eric Newcomer We agreed to say that the WSA as a Note has the same status as SOAP1.1. and put the same verbiage on the front of the document. Consensus on removing the Notational Convention The group stops for lunch at 12:05 Afternoon Group resumes at 12:45 DavidB let us look at the use of feature. Is it something more than a concept? If it is, then we have not made such a good use of this distinction in the document. The group discusses of how to deal with this. Frank: I am not averse to removing it but there are going to be times where it is not obvious what we will replace it with. Consensus: Conditional removal of "feature" but retaining the right to discuss the meaning of the term and its appropriateness as we go through the document. Roger; what do the arrows mean in the figure that shows all 4 models? DavidB: let us move that figure to the front right after the title 2.3 Architecture Models Discussion on what the arrows mean. Katia: the arrow means "partially layered on" Action item: Frank will redraw the diagram and put the legend. Action item: MikeC to bring up the issue of location of address in SOAP. The group went on to revise the text up to Capability in section 2 (Concepts and Relations)