resend of initial discussion

[Keith Babo <keith.babo@Sun.COM>]

Looks like my mail client mangled the last message.  Let's try it as a
text attachment instead ...

cheers,
keith

This is the first in a series of messages that I will send to the list to 
get things kicked off in the Web Services subgroup.  Unless there are any
objections, the initial order of business will be to establish the requirements
and objectives of the team.  Next, I would like to have a series of high-level 
discussions on possible solutions/approaches, followed by a concrete plan of 
action for implementation.  Pretty standard stuff. ;-)


One of the most important things we need to iron out is what our operating 
charter will be in the upcoming months.  Based on my review of previous 
activities in this SC, the web services effort seems to break down into two 
separate camps:

 Camp 1) Identify integration points between CPP (and possibly CPA?) and 
 WSDL documents to achieve a WSDL representation of CPP content.

 Camp 2) Identify methods for introducing variability into the existing 
 CPPA schema to accommodate a broader range of web services activities
 (business choreography, security, reliability, etc.)


I definitely get the impression that the previous work done by Arvola, et al.,
was in Camp 1.  Based on previous F2F presentation materials, I gathered that
the main thrust of their activity was towards establishing an 'exportable' 
representation of CPP/CPA content in the form of WSDL.  Naturally, the effort
focused on representing configuration details below the business collaboration
layer.  One open item is whether this work should be continued.  Yet another 
is whether or not the scope of this work should be expanded to include the
representation of business collaboration details within WSDL (perhaps by 
importing/substituting CPPA collaboration definitions??).

Camp 2 seems to be a bit more apropos given the alignment discussions of late.  
Essentially, the main effort involved here is to allow for the integration of 
other WS definitions within a CPP/A document.  Without getting into the 
technical details at this point, I would like to iron out the goals of the 
effort.  Specifically, I feel we should develop a strategy for including 
additional specifications 'by reference' that will not lead to a hard-coded 
binding to any particular definition/specification.

In the upcoming weeks, I would like to narrow down our focus a bit to include
some substantial (yet achievable) objectives.  Once we trim the fat, so to
speak, then we can go neck deep into the technical details.