|Subject:||[business-transaction] March 8, 2002 draft minutes|
|From:||William Z Pope (zpo...@pobox.com)|
|Date:||Mar 11, 2002 8:26:01 pm|
BTP Face to Face Meeting March 8, 2002 Hosted by Geoff Brown at Oracle
Meeting was a success. A draft schedule was produced (included below) for release of the spec from committee. BEA and Oracle agreed to close some issues and defer others until after the release of the 1.0 spec. This, along with the issues to be closed by the model text will leave us with less than 10 issues open.
Agenda: - What's needed to move to committee draft + Schedule and Dates + Primer schedule - BTP Marketing - Issues + Issues deferred to post 1.0. + Conformance
---------------------------------------- * Geoff Brown: Oracle to internally review the current SOAP 1.1 bindings. * Bill Cox & Mark Potts: Draft of Primer by March 15. * Bill Pope & Geoff Brown: Draft of Executive Summary. Include clear statement of business case for BTP. * Bill Pope & Mike Leznar: draft press release for BTP committee draft.
---------------------------------------- Needed for completion - All issues resolved - Primer - Model Completed
Starting March 11 - 2 weeks to work on raw material March 25 - 1 week to produce review draft * Publish to committee - 2 week comment period - 2 weeks of assimilation and editing * Re-Publish to committee - 1 week of reading time - F2F, vote to accept as committee draft F2F week of May 13th - May 17th
---------------------------------------- - All new issues will be automatically created with state set to "deferred until after 1.0". This makes concrete the decision taken at the end of last year.
SOAP Bindings - Need to clarify that the binding component is NOT (typically) implemented as part of the application. It is implemented as part of a toolkit/library/component. - Are the current toolkits able to implement the BTP bindings.
Web Services - How much are we targeting BTP towards web services? These seems to have changed over time. The web services market seems to be becoming more important. - The initial charter for BTP allowed for web services but was not the sole requirement or reason for the spec. - The web services market has set end user expectation that web services are end-user producible. This requires a spec with much more background and description than a spec targeted infrastructure developers. - What is the target audience for this specification? Product vendors or direct users. - The current spec is targetted at the TC members, infrastructure vendors, and prospective vendors.
Documents to be produced - Spec Target audience: implementors of BTP components Protocol specification. Peter and all TC - Primer Target audience: web services implementors, architects or others required for technical sale Technical introduction Bill Cox, Mark Potts, and those responding to the call - Executive summary Target audience: end customers of the technology, "the masses" Business placement, problem addressed, audience for the spec. Expected use. Sales tool - "better, cheaper, faster" Bill Pope and Geoff Brown
Spec requirements - Need a clear statement of the impact on consumer application and the provider application. - Consumer application Initiator component CONTEXT management Use of application information - Can we make the spec more understandable by reducing the document E.g., move the state tables to a separate document, normative appendix. - Add "Next Steps" section to the specification. This defines areas of future work and evolution of the spec. May give caveats on areas that are likely to change. For Oracle: need clear statement of business cases for BTP. - BTP performs "Committment Management"
What is BTP? Benefits and audiences - Need transactions that work over Internet infrastructure. Deployment in replicated environment makes transaction management difficult. In Oracle (design Principle) data is centralized. Support for Java spec needs to be addressed in BTP in some way, spec or binding. XML pipelining standard needs an underlying interoperation protocol, BTP could provide this. High performance applications using binary XML. * Question: Sanjay assumes that BTP provides value for long running transactions. Is this a core assumption for BTP? Does BTP support short lived transactions? Does it provide value for short lived transactions. Need interoperation to sustain and grow the transaction market. Value is in stitching together the new and legacy applications over the Internet.
- Shareable BTP state Need to define the Use Cases that we want to support. Open definition of state movement adds a specific value above and beyond what exists in any current products.
Marketing of the Specification 1) what is the business value of BTP 2) What is the audience for the spec 3) What is the appropriate level of the spec
Feedback from OMG web services conference The was a lack of understanding of the business problem that BTP solves that OTS does not solve. We need to more clearly address what the business need is for BTP. - What is the target implementation market? - What is the target deployment market?
* Need Statement of the Continuation of the Committee - 1.1 maintenance draft - OASIS standard production - New work
* Common BTP Presentations - Shareable within OASIS or the TC - Created by the TC - Downloadable from BTP web site.
* Press Releases Bill Pope and M Lenzar - Get quotes on BTP, high level execs from supporting companies. This is needed for the publication of the committee draft release.
* Publicize activities of TC members
William Z Pope zpo...@pobox.com