OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel-spec-edit message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Fw: [wsbpel-reqts] notes from our call today

As promised, notes from the issues coordination call yesterday regarding the possible agenda for next week.  

Regards, Diane
IBM  Dynamic e-business Technologies
(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123

----- Forwarded by Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM on 09/11/2003 01:59 PM -----
Diane Jordan

09/10/2003 05:06 PM

        To:        "Peter Furniss" <peter@furniss.co.uk>
        cc:        bpel rqmts <wsbpel-reqts@lists.oasis-open.org>
        From:        Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
        Subject:        RE: [wsbpel-reqts] notes from our call todayLink

Thanks - sorry you missed the call.   Most of the focus was on how to organize next week's agenda rather than the categorization (although no one howled in outrage at my effort).  In any case,  I don't want to formalize the categories at this point - there are lots of ways to slice the issues and unless the submitter/champion wants to adopt one, I don't think the TC should impose one.  Meanwhile, we can use this informally as one source of input to help plan agendas.    

We had a lot of discussion about various ways to run the f2f meeting next week - we didn't really have consensus on one approach.    For the sake of the folks who were not on the call (and the memory of those who were ;-) ) here are some notes:

After administrative start up stuff and agenda discussion, we would start the meeting with a discussion of a work plan for the TC (rather than have this at the end as I had first proposed).   I'm planning to suggest we start iterating on updates to the spec with the target to have a first pass for review before the next f2f.  There would be some additional (tbd) number of iterations before we would have an official draft.  I've yet to review this with the spec editing team, so it could change.  This might imply that we need to decide which issues should be included in the first update and it was suggested we could use the issue discussion on Thurs. to determine this.   To make room for this, the use case discussion moves to Friday am.   As in my original proposal, we would then have a discussion of the goals document and any related questions folks have for Satish Thatte and Dieter Roller (Frank Leymann will not be present).   Friday's would cover use cases, liaison reports, spec editing process, and wrap up.  

Thurs would be dedicated to issue discussions.  There are a number of options for organizing this day (some we discussed today and some that were discussed in previous meetings).  We didn't all agree on all of these:
1.  "Chunk" the day into blocks of time allocated for the groupings in the note below.  Since there are more groups than we would have time to reasonable discuss during a day we would either choose a subset of the groups or combine some of them.  I think we all agreed on this but there are a couple proposals that effect how many we could schedule and how we would use the chunks.  

2 and 3 are alternate objectives for the discussions/ways to decide on content:
2.  Spend the discussion time for a group working on selecting those issues that should be included in a first pass update of the spec.  This would allow us to finish the f2f with decisions on what issues need to be addressed immediately, but discussion of the resolutions would happen after the f2f.  
3.  Pick several important issues in each category and discuss possible resolutions for them.  This uses the time for in depth technical exchange but we might have difficulty deciding which issues are "important" (or more controversially, describing some set of issues as unimportant).  I have a feeling that in each group there are only a few issues where folks are really ready to delve deeply anyway regardless of the importance, so polling champions and the TC on readiness may be a more neutral selection process. However, I've already asked for suggestions and haven't gotten much.

4, 5 and 6 are alternative ways to allocate time:  
 4. Break the group into subgroups and run parallel discussions on the same topics for 2 hrs., then reconvene the full group to review and consolidate results for an hour.  This was discussed in the context of 2 above but could be applied to 3 also.   The smaller groups might encourage more participation and interactive discussions.  This limits us to 2 possibly 3 discussion blocks which would mean the topic groups to be discussed might be somewhat large, or we wouldn't get to many.  
5. Break the agenda into parallel threads with different topics running for 1-2 hours and then converging into a common session for an hour where the different topic groups would summarize their discussions.   This is more applicable if the content is organized around 3 above rather than 2.  This limits us to 2 or 3 discussion blocks, but two (or possibly more) topics could be covered at a time allowing us to cover more topics.  I've not seen suggestions for which topics can run in parallel and expect that many folks would want to participate in conflicting topics.  
6. Run a sequential agenda with the full group participating in common discussions.  3-5 topics could probably be scheduled in 1-2 hour blocks (depending on the content).  This avoids scheduling conflicts, maintains a common base of thinking and doesn't require time to be spent resyncing the group.  
We're open for input and I'm thinking of sending another note to the TC.   John and I will have to make a call in order to get the proposed agenda out by Friday but of course the TC will get to accept or revise it on the first day.    

Let us know what you think.  
Regards, Diane
IBM  Dynamic e-business Technologies
(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123

"Peter Furniss" <peter@furniss.co.uk>

09/10/2003 01:05 PM

        To:        Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "'bpel rqmts'" <wsbpel-reqts@lists.oasis-open.org>
        Subject:        RE: [wsbpel-reqts] some ideas for our call today

I'm very sorry, I clean forgot about the call (I was being useful in other directions).  And I've also not had time to do the kind correlation survey you've done here, which looks good.
If this categorisation was roughly what came out of the meeting, I'll add some linking and fields on this basis to the list.
Apologies for my amnesia
-----Original Message-----
Diane Jordan [mailto:drj@us.ibm.com]
10 September 2003 15:26
bpel rqmts
[wsbpel-reqts] some ideas for our call today

I've been playing around with the categories from both Monica and the original authors to explore possible discussion blocks for the meeting next week.  I basically used venn diagrams rather than specific issue content, level of interest shown in the TC to date, readiness for discussion, someone to champion, etc. all of which may be more important in deciding what winds up on the agenda.  So, given that it is a very rough view, I offer it in case its helpful.
I apologize for the lateness - I would have sent it sooner, but didn't get do it till late last night and felt it needed a review during daylight hours before sharing.  

Note, these aren't in any special order:  

1.  BTM:  53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 (all opened by Choreology).

2. compensation related issues

Error handling including compensation and permeability (authors categories): 1,3,10,25,27,30

Compensation (MM categories):10, 20 25, 30

State management - error handling (MM categories): 1, 3, 21, 27

3. Correlation and activity structures
Correlation (MM) 8, 14, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 37, 44, 49, 50

Activity structures (authors) 4, 14, 23, 28,44 (14 and 28 added since original authors  input)

Correlation (authors) 8, 33, 37

4. Event Handlers (authors) 32, 36, 41, 43 (note 32 in MM correlation group also)

5. Correlation and async. operations (MM): 16, 17, 22, 23, 36  

6. State management activites (MM) 2, 4, 5, 6, 43 -  no comparable group from authors (note issue 4 is also in authors activity structures)

7. Modelling/formalism (MM) :  18, 35, 38, 42 - no comparable group from authors

WSDL (authors): 7, 12, 15, 47;

XML (authors): 11, 13, 29, 39, 46
Technology (MM): 7, 12, 13, 15, 19, 40, 46, 47, 48

Assignment (MM): 11, 39, 51  
Regards, Diane
IBM  Dynamic e-business Technologies
(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]