Minutes of OASIS WSQM TC conference call



Minutes of OASIS WSQM TC conference call

The 2nd conference call of the OASIS Web Services Quality Model (WSQM) TC was held on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 from 0700 GMT to 0830 GMT.

Jiyong agreed to take the minutes.

1 Roll Call

Welcoming Remark by Prof. Min

Prof. Min asked Jiyong to check the attendance.

|Last Name |First Name |Company |Role |Attended |

|Kim |Yeong-Ho |Daewoo Information |Voting Member |( |

|Kerrigan |Mr. Mick |Digital Enterprise Research Institute |Observer |( |

|Zaremba |Dr. Michal |Digital Enterprise Research Institute |Voting Member |( |

|Jeon |Jong Hong |Electronics and Telecommunications |Observer |( |

| | |Research Institute | | |

|Moon |Ki Young |Electronics and Telecommunications |Voting Member |( |

| | |Research Institute | | |

|Spyridopoulos |John |Glintech |Voting Member |( |

|Lee |Youngkon |Individual |Voting Member |( |

|Min |Dugki |Individual |Voting Member |( |

|Jung |Hyun |Korean National Computerization |Observer |( |

| | |Association | | |

|Kim |Dr. Eunju |Korean National Computerization |TC Convener |( |

| | |Association | | |

|Lee |Ho Kyoung |Korean National Computerization |Voting Member |( |

| | |Association | | |

|Oh |Hyun-Mok |Korean National Computerization |Voting Member |( |

| | |Association | | |

|Pyon |Jiyong |Korean National Computerization |Voting Member |( |

| | |Association | | |

|Choi |Jungkuk |Methodi inc |Voting Member |( |

|Kwon |SoonJae |Methodi inc |Voting Member |( |

|Clark |James Bryce |OASIS |OASIS Staff Contact |( |

|Cover |Robin |OASIS |Observer |( |

|Shin |Soocheol |Samsung SDS Co., Ltd. |Voting Member |( |

|Tan |Puay Siew |Singapore Institute of Manufacturing |Observer |( |

| | |Technology | | |

9 of 13 voting members are present, hence meeting is Quorate.

Jiyong stated that Yeong-Ho Kim had notified him in advance that he would not be able to attend the meeting due to the project that he was working on.

Jiyong stated that Mr. Mick Kerrigan and Dr. Michal Zaremba would be busy with their Semantic Web Conference at DERI.

Mr. Jaeseung Lee stated that He was present instead of Ki Young Moon.

Jiyong called out Mr. John Spyridopoulos’ name and confirmed the pronunciation of his last name.

Jiyong asked Mr. John Spyridopoulos’ permission to call him casually as John and he agreed.

Jiyong stated that Mr. Jaeseung Lee was attending the meeting on the behalf of Ki Yong Moon.

Jiyong stated that there is a guest from LG CNS, Mr. Moojung Ahn.

Mr. Moojung Ahn briefly introduced about himself. He stated that he was in charge of Web Service and SOA in LG CNS.

Jiyong stated that thiere is another guest from NCA, Mr. Sungshin Hong.

Mr. Sungshin Hong briefly introduced about himself.

Jiyong stated that there were not members of WSQM TC yet but there were prospective members.

Prof. Min asked if they were in process of becoming members of WSQM TC.

Mr. Moojung Ahn stated that he was in the registration process and he would officially be a member of WSQM TC sooner or later.

Prof. Mind asked Jiyong that how many members were present.

Jiyong announced that there were 9 voting members out of 13 voting members, thus the meeting was quorate.

Dr. Eunju Kim stated that John couldn’t connect in last conference call.

John stated that he was indeed not able to connect due to the technical problem.

Dr. Eunju Kim suggested John to introduce himself.

John stated that he is a senior consultant of Glintech in Sydney. In addition, He also stated about his objective in this collaborative effort of WSQM, his special plan on research of SOA with Ph D. students and his own agenda to get Ph. D next year.

Prof. Min asked John if Glintech is a consulting company.

John stated Glintech is a consulting organization focused on enterprise application integration, J2EE development and .Net development.

2 Review and approval of the agenda

Agenda of the 20051109 conference call:



Prof. Min asked John if he checked the agenda.

John stated that he checked the agenda in advance.

Prof. Min reminded each items in agenda.

Prof. Min asked if there are any other items that need to be discussed.

Dr. Kim stated that there is none.

Jiyong asked if there is any objection

Prof. Min stated that there is no objection.

The agenda was approved.

3 Approval of the 2005/10/12 meeting minutes

The minutes of the 20051012 conference call:



Jiyong stated that he would assume that everyone in TC had reviewed the minutes in advance since it was distributed and announced earlier.

Jiyong pronounced each item from minutes of the last conference call.

Prof. Min asked if there are any missing parts or corrections to be made.

Dr. Kim stated that there is none.

No objections, thus the minutes of the last conference call was approved.

4 Review and approval of the charter

The charter:



Prof. Min asked when the charter has been written.

Dr. Kim stated that she was not sure of the exact date of the charter written.

Prof. Min stated that the charter has been revised several times with Jamie since its first draft. And asked when the charter was finally updated.

Jiyong stated that the charter was finally updated on September 12, 2005.

Prof. Min stated that the two versions of charters had been distributed, old and new version.

Dr. Kim added that the old version was published with Jamie for the call for participation of 1st conference call, and new version had been updated since. And there was a minor change between them.

Prof. Min asked John if he had both versions of the charter.

John stated that he had new version from web site.

Jiyong stated that the changes between old version and new version were minor changes which in most cases had been editorial clean-ups.

Prof. Min stated that he would review the charter item by item.

No corrections to be made in part a of the charter

Prof. Min stated that there had been changes in part b for more clear meaning of the statement.

Prof. Lee stated he was ok with it since it was small change.

John stated he was ok with it.

No corrections to be made in part b of the charter

Jiyong pointed out that in part c of the charter, Web Services Quality Test Model (WSQTM) had been changed to Web Services Quality Test Guideline in new version.

Dr. Kim also pointed out that Web Services Test Guideline was indicated as an option in part c while it is in a list of deliverables in part d and suggested to discuss about it.

Prof. Min suggested Web Services Test Guideline to be one of the deliverables since TC have more time than they thought they initially had for making Web Services Test Guideline, and therefore remove ‘if possible’ in the sentence.

Prof. Min asked John for his opinion.

John confirmed and agreed.

Prof. Min asked Jiyong to correct the charter accordingly.

Prof. Min expressed his gratitude to Dr. Kim for her suggestion

No more corrections to be made in part c.

Prof. Min asked if the order of the deliverables in the part d of the charter was suitable.

Prof. Min stated that he estimated the TC would be able to finish the first deliverable ‘Web Services Quality Model (WSQM)’ within a year (by October in 2006).

Prof. Min asked opinions about the completion date of Web Services Quality Description Language (WS-QDL).

Dr. Kim stated that it is possible to finish WS-QDL according to the schedule since enough time is given to TC.

Prof. Min suggested to switch the order between WS-QDL and Web Services Test Guideline.

Prof. Lee suggested to put WSQM and WS-QDL together since they were strongly relevant each other and place them in parallel to Web Service Test Guideline.

John asked if the schedule has been reduced from 2 years to 18 months.

Dr. Kim asked for Prof. Lee’s confirmation.

Dr. Lee stated that WSQM TC would be able to finish the whole standard work within 18 months.

Dr. Kim projected that the completion date of WSQM standard work would be June, 2007 according to Dr. Lee’s suggestion.

Mr. Moojung Ahn suggested working on both WSQM and WS Quality Test Guideline simultaneously.

Prof. Min stated that 1 year for both WSQM and WS Quality Test Guideline might be too short since there is more work needed to be done for WS Quality Test Guideline. Prof. Min also stated that he agreed with idea to develop WSQM and WS-Quality Test Guideline at the same time but the completion date for WS Quality Test Guideline must be 18 months or 2 years from formation of TC.

Prof. Lee stated that WSQM and WS Quality Test Guideline are bonded tightly each other. He suggested starting WS Quality Test Guideline 6 months after starting WSQM so TC can adjust the completion date for the whole project.

Dr. Kim restated Prof. Lee’s suggestion and asked his confirmation.

Prof. Min stated that TC would complete WSQM by November in 2005 and complete WS-QDL and WS Quality Test Guideline together by November in 2006.

Dr. Kim confirmed that TC would complete WSQM within a year and also complete WS-QDL and WS Quality Test Guideline together within a year.

Prof. Lee stated that TC might need more time for WS-QDL and WS Quality Test Guideline because WS-QDL required much more time than TC might think.

Prof. Lee stated that 1 year is adequate for the completion of WS Quality Test Guideline.

Prof. Min stated that TC standard draft for WS-Quality Test Guideline is changing as the work of TC progresses; hence TC would need enough time for the completion of WS-Quality Test Guideline.

Dr. Kim summarized that WS-QDL and WS Quality Test Guideline would be placed in parallel in terms of priority, and WS-QDL would be completed within 6 months after the completion of the WSQM, and WS Quality Test Guideline would be completed within 1 year after the completion of the WSQM.

Dr. Kim asked if everyone agreed

Sungshin agreed with Dr. Kim and asked if total period of time for the entire work is 2 years.

Dr. Kim and Prof. Min confirmed that it is 2 years.

John restated the outcome of the discussion and agreed with it.

Prof. Min asked if there were any other suggestions.

No other suggestions and No more corrections to be made in part d

Prof. Min stated about the part e of the charter.

No objections and no corrections to be made in part e

Prof. Min stated about the part f of the charter.

No objections and no corrections to be made in part f

Prof. Min stated about the part g of the charter.

No objections and no corrections to be made in part g

Prof. Min asked if TC had to consider the part below the dotted line in the charter.

Jiyong stated that those were just information for the WSQM 1st conference call

Prof. Min stated the summary of discussion on the charter review.

Prof. Min asked if there are any objections.

Prof. Min asked if the voting is needed.

Jiyong stated that the voting is not necessary unless TC members want. As Jamie said in the last conference call, it is acceptable to use simple method like checking if there are any objections and then approve in case of no objection.

No objection, thus the charter was approved.

5. Contributed work

Prof. Min stated that there are two contributes works which are Web Services Quality Model and Web Service Quality Test Guideline both for Korean government. Prof. Min suggested to consider only WSQM at this moment since WS Quality Test Guideline will be commenced a year later.

Prof. Min asked if there are any issues to discuss on WSQM.

Dr. Kim stated that the initial draft of WAQM (v 1.0) was submitted and WSQM v 2.0 which TC is currently working on would be released in Korean version by the end of November 2005. And it will be translated into English next month and submitted by middle of next month.

Dr. Kim suggested that TC started reviewing WSQM v 2.0

Prof. Min restated suggestion from Dr. Kim that the first deliverable of WSQM TC would be based on the contributed work developed by NCA.

Dr. Kim suggested that TC might be able to start reviewing WSQM v 1.0 since the change is not substantial and start reviewing WSQM v2.0 in the next conference call.

Prof. Min asked John if he had read the WSQM document.

John replied that he had not thoroughly read the WSQM document yet and asked that if TC was discussing about WSQM ver 0.3.

Prof. Min asked Dr. Kim that she meant ver 0.3.

Dr. Kim confirmed that she meant ver 0.3.

Prof. Min suggested to review the revised version in the next conference call after it was released in next month.

John asked when the English version would be ready.

Dr. Kim replied that English version would be ready before the next conference call

Dr. Kim suggested to discuss the definition of Web Services Quality and any other related issue in the conference call

Prof. Min asked John if he had conducted any research on Web Service Quality.

John replied that he had been working with UDDI registry vendor on WS Quality metrics applying on WS policy.

Prof. Min asked John if he knew how many quality metrics they have.

John replied that he did not know how many quality metrics they have. He stated that he was also interest to see Web Services Quality Model in terms of business service value.

Prof. Min stated that the current WSQM document covers some of the topics which John just talked about. And Prof. Min asked John to introduce about Web Services Quality metrics on UDDI registry in the next conference.

John offered to send emails for the introduction of the topic.

Prof. Min stated that TC would review John’s email and discuss about it in the next conference call.

John asked where he could find the part about WSQM business value in WSQM v0.3 document.

Prof. Min stated that after the few minutes, he would let John know where he could find the part about WSQM business value in the document.

Prof. Min asked if there are any other issued to be discussed and mentioned about Web Service Quality which is the issue raised by Dr. Kim

Dr. Kim stated that TC need to discuss about the definition of the Web Services Quality since it is not in the contributed work. And she sent emails to TC members with attachment ‘ISO-9125 Software Quality Characteristics’ as a reference

Dr. Kim asked John if he got an email from Mr. Hokyoung Lee.

Prof. Min stated that the word ‘software’ should be replaced with ‘Web Services’ so the definition would be suitable for the TC’s objective.

Dr. Kim suggested that the definition could be simplified as ‘A set of attributes of a Web Services’ and attributes could be quality factors defined in the WSQM document. Dr. Kim also suggested that the definition also could be ‘A set of Web Services quality factors’ as an alternative choice.

Prof. Min stated that some key word should be added for better understanding.

Prof. Lee suggested to extend the definition of software quality to Web Services Quality. He also mentioned about the importance of interoperability of Web Service Quality due to its communication features. He stated that the communication could be interoperability or messaging.

Dr. Kim asked to clarify the definition of the feature in the software product and to specify the attributes of the Quality Characteristics.

Dr. Kim stated TC would choose the definition of software quality as the definition of Web Service Quality with slight adjustment or choose the definition simply as ‘A set of attributes’

Dr. Kim asked for clear definition of ‘feature’ in the definition of Software quality.

Prof. Min stated that ‘feature’ would represent functionality and ‘characteristics’ would represent non-functional characteristics hence, the definition of ‘Software Quality’ would include functionality and non-functionality.

Prof. Lee stated the functionalities are already included in ‘Software Quality Characteristic’.

Prof. Min suggested to continue the discussion through email because it is hard to reach the conclusion with limited time.

Dr. Kim said she would send email on the issue with her summarized opinion.

Prof. Min encouraged for TC members to send emails with their own definitions on this issue.

Prof. Min asked John if he would participate in this issue and John responded that he would.

Prof. Lee stated that, for anyone who is interested in Web Service Quality Model, they can access the data on the web site. And He stated that TC would need the direction and scope on Web Service Quality Model thus, members should present the direction and scope on Web Service Quality Model in the next conference call.

Prof. Min stated there was already scope specified in the contributed work.

Prof. Lee replied that TC might need to expand the scope over quality factor, quality activity and quality association. They could cover Contract, Deployment, Development and etc. And he repeated that TC need to define direction and scope of WSQM.

Dr. Kim suggested that TC could define ‘Quality Enabled Web Services’ which Dr. Kim had read and studied on many other papers and documents. She stated that TC need to define ‘Quality Enabled Web Services’ since TC is about Web Services Quality. And she also stated that there were many terms needed to be defined before the significant work began.

Prof. Min suggested to consider the terms from the research papers and business products. And for Prof. Lee’s suggestion, he suggested to review the scope of Quality Model specified in the contributed work.

Prof. Lee requested that one of co-chairs would prepare the scope of Web Services Quality.

Mr. Ahn stated that TC would need to review WSQM document and Prof. Min responded that TC would review the document in the next conference call. And he also stated the discussion about the document is needed.

Mr. Ahn stated, in other country, there might be different view on Web Services Quality different from the view in Korea. Therefore sharing the work is required and TC might need time to achieve it.

Dr. Kim stated that she would research on the terms relevant to Web Service Quality and send email to TC members. And she asked Jiyong to summarize terms and definitions collected from members. She suggested to start this by reviewing and discussing Web Services related terms via email before the next conference call.

Prof. Min suggested to discuss issues and how to review contributed work of WSQM via email. He suggested that TC could go over item by item for reviewing and TC would consider 3 different areas of WS models which are Activities, Attributes, Actors in prior to the review.

Dr. Kim pointed out that she would have liked to mention them in relation to terms of Web Services.

Dr. Min suggested that TC would discuss terms, scope, overview model and methodology on how to review contributed work step by step in the next conference call

Dr. Kim stated that John would present about UDDI registry and WS metrics in the next conference call.

John stated that he would try to send an email beforehand about the WS metric and the vendor he is currently working with.

Prof. Min Mentioned about definition of WS Quality which needs to be discussed in the next conference call

Mr. Ahn requested John that he could share his experience and knowledge on Web Services and SOA project that he had been working on in the next conference call.

John asked Mr. Ahn if he wanted specific to anything or overview in general

Mr. Ahn stated that TC could come up with new and improved concept through collaborative effort of TC. He stated that that was the reason for asking John to share his knowledge and experience in his country.

6. Issue Discussion – already discussed in previous item

7. Any Other Business

Prof. Min stated that, according to Dr. Kim, the English version of revised WSQM document will be published in next month, therefore conference call date should be in the middle of next month.

Dr. Kim stated NCA would publish the document once the date for next conference call was fixed.

Prof. Min suggested Dec. 14th, 2005. Everyone agreed. Prof. Min asked John if he was fine with time slot.

John stated that it would be better if the conference call would start earlier but he was satisfied with starting time since it starts in 6:00 pm and finishes in 7:30 pm.

Prof. Min announced that the next conference call will be held on 2005/12/14 1600 local time (0700 GMT).

Dr. Kim stated that she had sent emails to TC members asking their opinions about having F2F meeting in conjunction with OASIS Symposium in San Francisco in May next year.

Prof. Min stated that it would be very good idea because there would be many researchers and other OASIS members and it could be a great opportunity to share our activities and experiences with them. He stated that the symposium will be held between May 9 to 12.

Jiyong asked if it would be our first F2F meeting.

Dr. Kim replied that it was possible to have another F2F meeting before the F2F meeting in San Francisco if TC members think it’s too late to first F2F meeting in May next year.

Prof. Min asked John if he could visit Korea early next year.

John replied that he probably could not be able to attend the F2F meeting in Korea early next year because he is quite busy with his consulting work.

Prof. Min asked John if he could attend Symposium in San Francisco next year

John replied that it is possibility and he had to check with his managing director for possibility.

Dr. Kim suggest to discuss about this issue via email

Prof. Min agreed.

Dr. Kim mentioned that there had been few response to her email and asked TC members to reply her email promptly.

Jiyong encouraged TC members to communicate freely via email for more active discussions because he found that WSQM TC had been too silent about voicing their opinions and raising issues.

Prof. Min asked if email should be sent to every member in TC and if it’s added to email system of OASIS TC home page once it’s sent.

Dr. Kim confirmed.

Prof. Min announced that TC members can send email to all TC members and the email would be added to email system of OASIS TC homepage.

Dr. Kim stated that there are two possibilities for having F2F meeting next year. TC could have first F2F meeting in San Francisco in May next year and TC could have another F2F meeting in Seoul, Korea early next year before one in San Francisco. And she stated that she would ask TC member’s opinions via email.

Prof. Min announced the every item on the agenda had been covered and expressed his gratitude for TC member’s participation. And he stated that the next conference call will be held on 2005/12/14 and there will be 6 items discussed in the next conference call

8. Adjourn

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download