[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [business-transaction] [Fwd: FW: Call for Review: Web ServicesChoreography Working Group Proposal]
I agree that there needs to be some discussion of the relationship, but just how far that goes with respect to shaping an initial specification is open to some debate. I see it as a layered approach, with transaction committment (or choreography commitment) as sitting on top of a "basic" choreography infrastructure. Mark. ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Z Pope" <zpope@pobox.com> To: "Mark Little" <m.c.little@ncl.ac.uk>; "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>; <patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org> Cc: <karl.best@oasis-open.org>; <business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org>; "'Jeff Mischkinsky'" <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>; "'Don Deutsch'" <donald.deutsch@oracle.com> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 9:51 PM Subject: RE: [business-transaction] [Fwd: FW: Call for Review: Web Services Choreography Working Group Proposal] > > Mark, > I think this last part gets us to the discussion that was desired in > the first place. What is the relationship between choreography and > coordinated commitment (trying to be specific and avoid the overloaded > term "transaction") and should this be in scope for the working group. > > =bill > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Little [mailto:m.c.little@ncl.ac.uk] > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 7:27 PM > To: zpope@pobox.com; Martin Chapman; patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org > Cc: karl.best@oasis-open.org; business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org; > 'Jeff Mischkinsky'; 'Don Deutsch' > Subject: Re: [business-transaction] [Fwd: FW: Call for Review: Web > Services Choreography Working Group Proposal] > > > > I think we disagree an the amount of transactionality needed for > > an orchestration service, that's ok, though it might be the crux of > > this discussion. > > I think some orchestrations do require transactionality, but to require it > for all is not the right approach IMO. A base orchestration service that > does not provide transactions (whatever "transactions" might mean at that > level) but can be augmented with them is far better and for more likely to > achieve traction. > > > My goal in the BTP TC was to establish an extended > > standard vocabulary of actions, beyond request/response that allowed > > an orchestration to do things that aren't possible or are inefficient > > in existing workflow systems. I don't think your experience > > contradicts that or the need for that. > > If you don't have a workflow system then cohesions is a good starting point. > > > Going into the TC I didn't > > expect the outcome to be based on 2-phase interaction, but that turned > > out to be a good solution for a variety of reasons, not least of which > > being it is a well understood pattern even when the semantic guarantees > > of that pattern are changed, as done in BTP. I would very much like > > to see the discussion within the choreography work group include the > > affect that related operations and cohesions can have on business > > interactions. > > I think that anything with a transactions look-and-feel should be deferred > until there is a real foundation on which to build. When that happens, > cohesions and anything else are definitely worthy of inclusion. > > Mark. > > > > > Regards, > > =bill > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark Little [mailto:m.c.little@ncl.ac.uk] > > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 5:11 PM > > To: zpope@pobox.com; Martin Chapman; patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org > > Cc: tab@lists.oasis-open.org; karl.best@oasis-open.org; > > business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org; 'Jeff Mischkinsky'; 'Don > > Deutsch' > > Subject: Re: [business-transaction] [Fwd: FW: Call for Review: Web > > Services Choreography Working Group Proposal] > > > > > > Bill, as has already been pointed out, I think the mention of WS-Tx here > is > > misleading IMO. Certainly if transactional choreography is to be > considered > > by this working group then WS-Tx and BTP (and presumably THP since it is a > > W3C note) should be taken into account. However, > choreography/orchestration > > does not equate to transactionality and definitely does not require > > something like BTP (or WS-Tx). > > > > In my experience both when working inside HP and outside, > non-transactional > > process-flow/work-flow can be accomplished without a two-phase > transactional > > protocol as both BTP and WS-Tx atomic transactions require. To say that > BTP > > was designed as the basis for a general orchestration service is > incorrect: > > it would be more accurate to say that it could be used as the basis of > > transactional orchestration, which I think is important but not an initial > > step for an new working group to consider. > > > > This is a slight divergence, but within HP we found that if you had an > > existing workflow system and wanted transactional workflows then atoms > were > > more than enough and cohesions didn't give you anything you didn't already > > have from the workflow system. > > > > All the best, > > > > Mark. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "William Z Pope" <zpope@pobox.com> > > To: "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>; > > <patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org> > > Cc: <tab@lists.oasis-open.org>; <karl.best@oasis-open.org>; > > <business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org>; "'Jeff Mischkinsky'" > > <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>; "'Don Deutsch'" <donald.deutsch@oracle.com> > > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 10:38 AM > > Subject: RE: [business-transaction] [Fwd: FW: Call for Review: Web > Services > > Choreography Working Group Proposal] > > > > > > > > > > Martin, > > > I believe that you are selling BTP short. > > > > > > The technology spelled out in the BTP committee specification is > > > designed to provide the underpinnings of an orchestration service. > > > You'll see many of the same ideas such as passing context to establish > > > linkage between requests to disparate services, detection of element > > > failures, and selection of alternate routes through an application > > > choreography. > > > > > > The BTP TC consciously avoided tackling the choreography/orchestration > > > service for a number of reasons. a) getting the transactional > capabilities > > > right was a large enough problem (I would point out the inadequacies of > > > the WS-Transaction specification as a prima facia example of this). > > > b) The level of industry experience with choreography of loosely coupled > > > systems made standardization premature. In my view the ability to > > perform > > > coordination of application elements was seen by the BTP TC as the > outcome > > > of our work. > > > > > > The introduction, expansion, and development of the novel concept of > > > cohesions as an integral part of the BTP committee specification is a > > > strong indication of this intent. This feature only makes sense when > > > viewed as part of a system that is being run by business rules, > regardless > > > of how the rules are captured. I believe inclusion of BTP in a standard > > > system for application choreography will allow parallel development of > > > a useful standard at the same time experimentation is occuring. > Stifling > > > the experimentation will result in a weaker standard in an area > essential > > > for the use of web services for core business. > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > =bill > > > > > > William Z Pope Bill.Pope@Choreology.com > > > Choreology Ltd Mobile: +1 603 502 4490 > > > Director of Product Management Office: +44 20 7670 1679 > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com] > > > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 10:05 AM > > > To: patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org > > > Cc: tab@lists.oasis-open.org; karl.best@oasis-open.org; > > > business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org; 'Jeff Mischkinsky'; 'Don > > > Deutsch' > > > Subject: RE: [business-transaction] [Fwd: FW: Call for Review: Web > > > Services Choreography Working Group Proposal] > > > > > > > > > Patrick, > > > > > > I was involved in drafting this charter, and thus would like to comment > > > on your email. > > > The goal of the proposed new work group is to define > > > choreography/orchestration language(s) > > > within a Web services specific context. It is not the intention of the > > > proposed group to > > > define transaction mechanisms, as noted in the out-of-scope section of > > > the charter: > > > > > > It is obvious that transactions, security, reliability, > > > availability, and other such > > > qualities are intimately related with Web service choreography, > > > some more than others. > > > It is not the goal of this group to define these mechanisms, but > > > it must clearly > > > articulate the boundaries. > > > > > > In drafting the charter, it was not our intention to emphasize > > > WS-Transactions (as opposed to BTP), > > > and was mentioned in passing only because of its close association with > > > BEPL4WS, given the fact that > > > these documents were released as a package. > > > > > > Finally, I would like to point out that of more direct relevance to this > > > charter is ebxml, > > > especially BPSS, and this has been explicitly called out in the charter, > > > along with a need to > > > liaise with OASIS. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Karl Best [mailto:karl.best@oasis-open.org] > > > > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 5:21 AM > > > > To: business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > Subject: [business-transaction] [Fwd: FW: Call for Review: > > > > Web Services Choreography Working Group Proposal] > > > > > > > > > > > > BTP TC: > > > > > > > > OASIS would like your input regarding proposed upcoming activities at > > > > W3C. Please respond to Patrick and myself as suggested by > > > > Patrick's message. > > > > > > > > -Karl > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > > Subject: FW: Call for Review: Web Services Choreography Working Group > > > > Proposal > > > > Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:14:03 -0500 > > > > From: "Patrick Gannon" <patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org> > > > > To: "Karl Best" <karl.best@oasis-open.org> > > > > CC: "OASIS TAB" <tab@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > > > > > > Karl, > > > > > > > > Please forward this W3C CfR to the BTP TC, requesting them to > > > > provide a response to OASIS management within 2 weeks. I > > > > would like to see a listing of and specific portions of the > > > > BTP Specification that cover work items, deliverables or > > > > other specific topics noted within the WSC WG Scope of Work. > > > > > > > > As a W3C member, I plan to file a response on behalf of OASIS. > > > > > > > > Upon initial review of this CfR (and without benefit of > > > > closer examination), I am disturbed by the lack of research > > > > that the organizers of this new WSC WG have done on other > > > > relevant work. Their is NO mention of the OASIS BTP TC work > > > > and no listing of a liaison to OASIS to coordinate their > > > > proposed new work with relevant work that has gone on at > > > > OASIS over the past 22 months in the BTP TC. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Patrick Gannon > > > > President & CEO > > > > OASIS > > > > PO Box 455, Billerica, MA 01821 > > > > +1-978-667-5115 x201 (Office) > > > > +1-408-242-1018 (Mobile) > > > > +1-978-667-5114 (Fax) > > > > patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org > > > > http://www.oasis-open.org > > > > http://www.xml.org > > > > http://xml.coverpages.org/ > > > > http://www.ebxml.org > > > > http://www.legalxml.org > > > > http://www.uddi.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: w3c-ac-members-request@w3.org > > > > [mailto:w3c-ac-members-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Susan Lesch > > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 11:54 PM > > > > To: w3c-ac-members@w3.org > > > > Cc: cmsmcq@w3.org; hugo@w3.org > > > > Subject: Call for Review: Web Services Choreography Working > > > > Group Proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Advisory Committee representative, > > > > > > > > This is a call for review of a proposal to modify the Web > > > > Services Activity and create a Web Services Choreography > > > > Working Group as part of the existing Web Services Activity. > > > > > > > > The charter of the proposed Working Group can be found at: > > > > > > > > http://www.w3.org/2002/11/chor-proposal > > > > > > > > If you have any questions or need further information, please > > > > contact Hugo Haas, Web Services Activity Lead at > > > > <hugo@w3.org>, or C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Architecture Domain > > > > Leader at <cmsmcq@w3.org>. > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > for Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director; > > > > Hugo Haas, W3C Web Services Activity Lead and > > > > Susan Lesch, for the W3C Communications Team > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------- > > > > Activity Summary > > > > ---------------- > > > > > > > > The Web Services Activity statement is: > > > > > > > > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/Activity > > > > > > > > As described there, new work in the Web Services Activity is > > > > to be started on the basis of work by the Web Services > > > > Architecture Working Group. > > > > > > > > A Web Services Choreography Working Group is proposed to > > > > address the following problem: > > > > > > > > | Existing specifications for Web services describe the indivisible > > > > | units of atomic interactions. It has become clear that taking the > > > > | next step in the development of Web services will require the > > > > | ability to compose and describe the relationships between atomic > > > > | services. Although differing terminology is used in the industry, > > > > | such as orchestration, collaboration, coordination, conversations, > > > > | etc., the terms all share a common characteristic of describing > > > > | linkages and usage patterns between Web services. For the purpose > > > > | of this document, and without prejudice, we use the term > > > > | choreography as a label to denote this space. > > > > | > > > > | [..] > > > > | > > > > | The Web Services Choreography Working Group, part of the > > > > Web Services > > > > | Activity, is chartered to create the definition of a choreography, > > > > | language(s) for describing a choreography, as well as the > > > > rules for > > > > | composition of, and interaction among, such choreographed Web > > > > | services. The language(s) should build upon the > > > > foundation of the Web > > > > | Service Description Language 1.2 (WSDL 1.2). > > > > > > > > -- Proposal for Web Services Choreography Working Group Charter > > > > http://www.w3.org/2002/11/chor-proposal#scope > > > > > > > > In order to guarantee the broadest possible grounding for the > > > > work of the Working Group, the first face-to-face meeting is > > > > proposed to be in the form of an open forum with > > > > presentations to the Working Group of relevant technologies > > > > listed in the charter. > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------- > > > > Context and Motivation > > > > ---------------------- > > > > > > > > The Web Services Architecture Working Group has considered > > > > choreography since the group's inception. Discussion grew as > > > > various proposals were published and considered: > > > > > > > > - In February 2002, W3C received the WSCL Submission > > > > (http://www.w3.org/Submission/2002/02/) from Hewlett-Packard > > > > Company, drawing attention to the choreography area. > > > > > > > > - In June 2002, W3C received the WSCI Submission > > > > (http://www.w3.org/Submission/2002/04/) from BEA Systems, > > > > BPMI.org, > > > > Commerce One, Fujitsu Limited, Intalio, IONA, Oracle Corporation, > > > > SAP AG, SeeBeyond Technology Corporation and Sun Microsystems, > > > > asking the creation of a Web Services Choreography Working Group. > > > > > > > > In response, the W3C Team asked the Web Services Architecture > > > > Working Group to review the Submission. > > > > > > > > At the beginning of August 2002, another set of proposals > > > > (BPEL4WS, WS-Coordination, WS-Transaction) was released by > > > > BEA Systems, IBM and Microsoft. > > > > > > > > At the Working Group's 11-13 September 2002 face-to-face > > > > meeting, the Working Group agreed unanimously that, due to > > > > the proliferation of proposals, work on choreography should > > > > happen soon in a open > > > > environment: > > > > > > > > | The WSA WG is committed to the creation an open common Web > > > > Services > > > > | architecture where customers, developers, and IT vendors build > > > > | solutions together--an architecture that takes the principles of > > > > | interoperability, vendor-independence, and openness into account. > > > > | > > > > | It has become clear that a critical next step in the evolution of > > > > | Web services will be the ability to compose and describe the > > > > | relationships between Web services to support stateful, > > > > long-running > > > > | interactions. Although differing terminology is used in > > > > the industry, > > > > | such as orchestration, collaboration, coordination, conversations, > > > > | etc., the terms all share a common characteristic of describing > > > > | linkages and usage patterns between web services. For this > > > > purpose, > > > > | and without prejudice, we use the term choreography. > > > > | > > > > | The WSA WG encourages the formation of an open, industry-wide > > > > | working group with the aim of developing interoperable and > > > > open Web > > > > | services standard(s) that support stateful, long-running > > > > | interactions. > > > > > > > > -- Web Services Architecture Working Group: 11-13 September 2002 > > > > face-to-face minutes > > > > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/09/f2f-minutes > > > > > > > > After further consideration, the Working Group decided (17 to > > > > 1 in favor, with 8 abstentions) to request the formal > > > > chartering of a Working Group on choreography specifically at W3C. > > > > > > > > The Web Services Architecture Working Group expressed the > > > > motivation for such work: > > > > > > > > | WSDL has proved very useful for describing a single service. > > > > | Currently complex natural language describing the > > > > obligations of the > > > > | participants detailing how to use a service (sequencing, state > > > > | management, etc.) have to accompany a WSDL description. > > > > The next step > > > > | is to partially replace these somewhat imprecise instructions with > > > > | precise language. This will simplify the daunting task > > > > companies now > > > > | face when trying to use web services to integrate their business > > > > | processes. In a B2B context such a specification could reduce the > > > > | cost of integrating with new trading partners and responding to > > > > | changes in existing interfaces. As well, creating a > > > > standard language > > > > | to describe the relationships between document exchanges will be > > > > | helpful to other standards bodies, such as RosettaNet or > > > > CIDX, giving > > > > | them a standard infrastructure for message choreography > > > > and enabling > > > > | them to focus on the core competencies relevant to their domain. > > > > > > > > -- Proposal for Web Services Choreography Working Group Charter > > > > http://www.w3.org/2002/11/chor-proposal#scope > > > > > > > > The W3C Director recognizes the importance of this work for > > > > Web services and is therefore presenting this charter for > > > > your consideration. > > > > > > > > It is believed that the Web Services Architecture Working > > > > Group has framed the work enough for experts in this area to > > > > continue the discussion inside this new proposed W3C Working Group. > > > > > > > > The Web Services Architecture Working Group identified > > > > BPEL4WS and WSCI as important inputs for the proposed work. > > > > As per the request from the Web Services Architecture Working > > > > Group and the Web Services Coordination Group, the W3C > > > > Management Team has been approaching the main stakeholders in > > > > this area to try and guarantee their participation in this > > > > effort. While WSCI was submitted to W3C, the authors of > > > > BPEL4WS have not made the specification available to W3C to > > > > work on yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------- > > > > Activity Structure and Resources > > > > -------------------------------- > > > > > > > > W3C will allocate 0.6 full-time equivalent engineers to the > > > > Working Group. Yves Lafon will be the W3C Team Contact for > > > > this Working Group. Hugo Haas will be the Alternate Team Contact. > > > > > > > > The W3C Team is in the process of evaluating candidates for > > > > chairing the Web Services Choreography Working Group. > > > > Proposals for additional candidates are welcome, and should > > > > be sent to Michael Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@w3.org>, Yves > > > > Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> and Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>. > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------- > > > > Intellectual Property > > > > --------------------- > > > > > > > > As with all Working Groups under the Web Services Activity, > > > > the proposed Web Services Choreography Working Group will > > > > operate in a Royalty-Free mode, as defined in the W3C Current > > > > Patent Practice: > > > > > > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-patent-practice-20020124 > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > > > Proposed Changes to Web Services Activity > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > This proposal to modify the Web Services Activity > > > > > > > > Web Services Activity > > > > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ > > > > > > > > to include a Web Services Choreography Working Group follows > > > > the guidelines of sections 3.3 and 4.2.1 of the W3C Process Document: > > > > > > > > 3.3 Activity Proposals > > > > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/activities.html# > > > > BPCreation > > > > 4.2.1 Working Group and Interest Group Creation and > > > > Modification > > > > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/groups#WGCreation > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------- > > > > Review Form and Instructions > > > > ---------------------------- > > > > > > > > This call for review includes a call for participation. > > > > Should the final version of the charter be significantly > > > > different as a result of this review, the W3C Team will treat > > > > the participation commitments as provisional. > > > > > > > > In the discussions about how to proceed with this work, some > > > > Members suggested that further preparatory work should be > > > > done before chartering the Working Group. In the response > > > > form below, this possibility has been called out separately: > > > > in addition to supporting the idea or being opposed to it, > > > > you can express the view that W3C should definitely work in > > > > this area, but that the work should be started only in a few > > > > months, after some additional preparation work that you can specify. > > > > > > > > 1. Preparation. Please review the proposed charter: > > > > > > > > http://www.w3.org/2002/11/chor-proposal > > > > > > > > 2. Deadline. Your review must be received before: > > > > > > > > 24:00 UTC 12 December 2002 > > > > > > > > The Director expects to announce the results of the review > > > > within two weeks after the deadline. The Director will keep > > > > the Advisory Committee informed if additional time for > > > > consideration is required. > > > > > > > > 3. Where to send your review. > > > > > > > > Replies to this proposal must be sent to: > > > > > > > > team-ws-chor-review@w3.org > > > > > > > > The W3C Team encourages Advisory Committee representatives to > > > > send their reply both to the review list > > > > <team-ws-chor-review@w3.org>, which is Team-confidential, and > > > > to the AC forum <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>, which is > > > > Member-readable, in order to foster discussions around this proposal. > > > > > > > > FORM BEGINS > > > > > > > > I, ____________________ , > > > > > > > > W3C Advisory Committee Representative of > > > > > > > > [name of Member organization] > > > > > > > > available via electronic mail at: > > > > > > > > [AC representative email address] > > > > > > > > provide the following advice as to this proposal to > > > > modify the Web Services Activity: > > > > > > > > ( ) My organization agrees that W3C should proceed as proposed. > > > > > > > > ( ) My organization agrees that W3C should add a Web Services > > > > Choreography Working Group to the Web Services Activity, but > > > > requests the following changes: > > > > > > > > (Optional) We would like the following additional preparation > > > > work to take place: > > > > > > > > ( ) My organization requests the following critical changes. > > > > The Working Group should not be added without these changes: > > > > > > > > ( ) My organization requests that W3C not change this Activity > > > > at all. Our reasoning is: > > > > > > > > By default, the disposition of reviews will show the origin > > > > of the comments. If you want your review to be anonymized, > > > > please check the > > > > following: > > > > > > > > [ ] My organization wishes to keep its comments anonymous. > > > > > > > > Note: if you don't want your comments to be kept > > > > anonymous, the W3C > > > > Team encourages you to send this review to <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org> > > > > also. > > > > > > > > Should this proposal be approved, we propose the following > > > > participant(s) for the Web Services Choreography Working Group: > > > > > > > > Participant 1: > > > > Given Name . . . : > > > > Family Name . . : > > > > E-mail Address . : > > > > Telephone Number : > > > > Employer . . . . : > > > > > > > > Participant 2: > > > > Given Name . . . : > > > > Family Name . . : > > > > E-mail Address . : > > > > Telephone Number : > > > > Employer . . . . : > > > > > > > > We understand the level of commitment as outlined in the > > > > Charter. We are willing to commit to this, and > > > > support him or her > > > > with the requisite travel and other expenses related > > > > to the work > > > > in the working group. > > > > > > > > Intellectual Property Rights (please choose one) > > > > > > > > The definitions of Royalty-Free and reasonable and > > > > non-discriminatory terms below are the ones from the Current > > > > Patent Practice of 24 January 2002: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-patent-practice-20020124#sec-Definition > > > > > > > > [ ] To the best of my personal knowledge, my organization has no > > > > essential patents. > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > [ ] My organization has patents that may be essential. > > > > List of those patents . . . . : > > > > > > > > We agree to license them: > > > > > > > > [ ] on Royalty-Free terms to all implementers, whether or not > > > > they are Members of W3C. > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > [ ] on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. > > > > > > > > In this case, please send an email to > > > > <patent-issues@w3.org> as > > > > per the W3C Process including your complete IPR declaration. > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > [ ] My organization may or may not have essential patents. > > > > > > > > If we do, we agree to license them: > > > > > > > > [ ] on Royalty-Free terms to all implementers, whether or not > > > > they are Members of W3C. > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > [ ] on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. > > > > > > > > In this case, please send an email to > > > > <patent-issues@w3.org> as > > > > per the W3C Process including your complete IPR declaration. > > > > > > > > Note that each intellectual property disclosure is expected to be > > > > made public with each Working Draft published by the > > > > Working Group. > > > > If you would like to keep this disclosure Member-confidential, > > > > please check the following: > > > > > > > > [ ] We wish to keep our intellectual property declaration > > > > Member-confidential. > > > > > > > > Other items to be considered by the W3C Director: > > > > > > > > FORM ENDS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > > > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC