ISSUE 2:
manageability of a web service: inferred from manageable
endpoints or do we need to
define manageable service separately
The former means that an endpoint's
manageability information is sufficient to infer manageability of a service. The
manager can do it and may represent the manageable service which we may define
later, but not now. The later means that we define manageable service as a
separate concept and associate manageability capabilities and information with
it and not with an endpoint.
[long discussion on the culprits of the web
service concepts, not recorded]
DECISION: we will not define separate model for
a manageable service
ACTION: William to provide text on inferring
manageability of a service from manageable endpoints (generally, no specifics of
how)
William's concern about manageability
information to capture relationship of endpoints and services separately from
WSDL/UDDI, etc. was postponed until we get to discuss the actual manageability
model with concete properties, etc. William will propose and justify concrete
elements of the model at that point.
ISSUE
3: aggregation of manageability to the endpoint level is a
responsibility of the provider of manageability (need text for the concepts
section)
This is clear,
but needs an action item on someone to provide the
text.
ACTION: Fred to provide text for the ISSUE
3.
ISSUE 4 (by BrianC): concepts of
versioning have to be applied to the MOWS Concepts diagram
Igor:
yes, but may be as details of the concepts diagram: pick elements that are
necessary to express the versioning/revision concepts and draw a diagram
complimentary to the main diagram
ACTION: BrianC to provide a versioning concepts diagram
- revisions are
infromation about the an element
- change
descriptions are information about transitions between
revisions
[Andrea's
comments?? sorry, didn't capture them]
BrianC: question
to the group: should revision concepts be part of the main diagram or a detail
diagram that compliments the main diagram?
Andrea, DanF,
Igor: complimentary detail diagram
DanF&Igor had
a concern that version has to be expressed as well. For example a versioned
service "is a" service with version as an attribution. Revisions are written
against versioned elements (associated to). This applies to all other elements
that can be versioned.
BrianC
agreed.
ACTION: BrianC to
align the versioning/revision/change detail UML diagram with the MOWS Concepts
diagram and incorporate "versioned X is an X"
elements.
CALL
CLOSED
ACTION: BrianC to attempt to express ManageableEndpointState
UML information model linked directly to the web service endpoint state
diagrams designed by the W3C Arch MTF.
NOT DISCUSSED
ISSUE 6: There is
a need for another diagram to display the "locus of implementation"
concepts.
Essentially the diagram to depict
relationships between manageable endpoint in MOWS Concepts and manageability
endpoint in MUWS.
ACTION: Igor to provide "locus of implementation" concepts diagram
for MOWS.
NOT DISCUSSED
ISSUE 7: another
diagram that shows relationships of MUWS and MOWS concepts (possibly
aggregation/composition of manageability capabilities).
NOT
DISCUSSED