Hi Hiro and the Teams,

We discussed your presentation at the CDDLM meeting. We have questions
about the following aspects:

1. The presented comparison is a little bit of apples-to-oranges. We are
comparing a job submission with the deployment tool. What exactly do we
want to accomplish? For example, should we provide a list of "JSDL
document does not include" as an equivalent to slide 6 in the last
presentation you have sent?

2. You start from a radically simple case, which does not emphasize any
of the CDL features: dependencies, lazy evaluation, naming, etc. You do
not even have the need to deploy the BLAST application, it is stored in
a well know location on the local system. Should we not expand it for
where there is a need for deployment?

3. Is this example good enough for you? What about other more complex
scenarios? Do you plan to introduce them. I think for balanced
evaluation, you may want to address two scenarios upfront and how they
are addressed by both tools.

In a summary, how should we take it further? Should we extend the
example you had with what CDL does? Should we target the F2F for this
purpose?

Thanks,

Dejan.

Also, I include the follow-up message From Jun Tatemura, which further
clarifies:

I went through the newer version of CDLforBLAST slides.
My understanding on this slides is that they expect CDDLM/CDL to deploy
(configure)
- application binary (installation  of blast binary and required
environment)
- file system (mount file system)
- database (setup -- I don't know details on what must be set up...)
- environment variables
and let JSDL do the rest.
If so, what we can do would be:
(1) first, we want to confirm that this is the line they want to draw
(--> your question 1 comes here. It this what they mean?)
(2) if we agree on the line, then we would like to have more information
on the requirement (and/or assumed environment) to deploy the above so
that we can design CDDLM components for this use case.
 (--> your questions 2,3 are aligned with this - how much we should
extend the deployment requirements from the base case (where everything
is already available))
(3) Once we have components, we can write CDL and discuss how CDL and
JSDL interact.

Thanks,
Jun


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-cddlm-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-cddlm-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf

> Of Hiro Kishimoto
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 9:18 PM
> To: OGSA WG; cddlm-wg@ggf.org
> Subject: [cddlm] Revised CDL for BLAST slides (Re: Proposed agenda for

> March 15th call)
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I've added Chris Smith's comments to CDL for BLAST slides, Let's 
> review this at this OGSA-WG call tomorrow.
> 
> It is also uploaded to gridforge;
> https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/CDL_for_BLAST
> 
> Thanks,
> ----
> Hiro Kishimoto
> 
> Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on
> March 15th
> > Wednesday from 4pm to 6pm (CST).
> > 
> > Dial-in numbers for Wednesday:
> >   Free: +1-888-452-0308
> >   Intl/Toll: +1-484-644-0505
> >   PIN:  71815
> > 
> > Screen share service will be provided.
> >   URL:         http://ogsa.glance.net
> >   Session key: 0315
> > See more explanation:
> > 
> http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.ht
> > ml
> > 
> > 1) Early discussion (20 min)
> >         Note taker assignment
> >         Roll call
> >         Telecon minutes approval (if available)
> >         Agenda bashing
> > 
> > 2) April F2F meeting update (20 min)
> > 
> >         F2F meeting venue is Intel@Santa Clara & Fujitsu@Sunnyvale.
> >         The updated session schedule is uploaded to GridForge:
> > 
> https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/200604F2F_sessio
> > n
> > 
> >         In order to have general EMS discussion before
> CDDLM session,
> >         is it possible to switch these two sessions?
> >         a) joint CDDLM-WG session (Apr. 5 Wed. 1:30-4:30pm)
> >         b) EMS architecture session (Apr. 6 Thu. 9am-12:30pm)
> > 
> > 3) joint CDDLM-WG discussion (60 min)
> > 
> >  From the minutes of joint F2F meeting in Athens;
> > 
> >>   ACTION: Steven Newhouse to write up a first draft of a few more
> >>   scenarios on the relationship between JSDL and CDL.
> >>   - To be included in the current EMS scenarios document.  
>  - To be
> >> delivered by mid-March
> >>   - Review on an OGSA call and continue refinement
> >>
> >> ** Whiteboard list produced during the discussion
> >>
> >>   - Duplication of JSDL in CDL?
> >>   - Directory/user creation
> >>   - What is the difference between  [job / application /
> container]
> >> configuration]
> >>   - Where is line between JSDL and CDL and is it policy specific
> >>   - Job lifecycle including deployment and start/stop
> > 
> > 
> >         Steven will send out revised version of his
> "interaction between
> >         CDDLM & JSDL" scenarios before the call.
> > 
> >         Revised "CDL for BLAST" slides attached.
> > 
> > 4) Wrap up (10 min)
> >         AOB
> > 
> > <NEXT CALL>
> > March 20 (Mon): OGSA-HPC profile (Marvin) March 22 (Wed): Security 
> > Architecture (Takuya and Frank) March 27 (Mon): EMS scenarios, 
> > Steven's scenarios review,
> >                 Information Model, Ellen's CIM profile
> review March 29
> > (Wed): F2F preparation
> > 
> > Telecon schedule:
> > 
> https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule
> > /
> > 
>