1 Jul
2014
1 Jul
'14
3:33 p.m.
Present: Florido, Salvatore, Warren, Shiraz, JP Meeting folder: http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf/glue-wg?folder_id=6588 > Agenda/minutes: > > 1) LDAP rendering: assess final wg comments and votes and perhaps forward for public comment > Previous: >> Action 1: Florido will coordinate with Maria to confirm that all the recommended testing was completed >> Action 2: Once testing is complete, Florido will share a schema document without the release candidate lable >> Action 3: JP/Shiraz will merge schema into rendering document, e-mail list to vote and approve document for release to public comment Action 1: Florido will post final schema by tomorrow/Wednesday to meeting folder Action 2: JP/Shiraz will merge schema into rendering document and post proposed public comment document to meeting folder Action 3: JP/Shiraz will call for e-mail list vote to release document for public comment after OGF 41 Action 4: Final vote to release to public comment at OGF 41 including e-mail list votes > 2) Enumerations: approve enumerations process document All action items complete. Keep topic on agenda to discuss requests for new enumerations. > 3) Cloud Extensions: compare benefits and disadvantages of both approaches > Previous: >> Action 1: Shiraz/JP ask Andre and OGF steering committee for ideas on resolving two approaches supported by 1 community each Warren/JP propose XSEDE abstaining in a 2.0 vs 2.1, making GLUE 2.1 the cloud interoperability standard. XSEDE would produce a Community Practice Profile for using GLUE 2.0 to describe Cloud Infrastructures Action 1: Shiraz/JP will find a Community Practice, Profile example for Warren Action 2: Salvatore and Warren will prepare OGF 41 slides presenting advantages and disadvantages if approaches Action 3: Shiraz/JP will ask Andre and Steering Committee for suggestions regarding dilemma > 4) JSON: continue rendering discussions, discuss next steps. > Previous: >> Representing association, a to b, b to a, or both? >> Option 1: schema allows both directions, rendering document identifies directionality rules that should be followed >> Option 2: schema requires both directions >> Option 3: schema requires one direction which we consider to be the best, and in few cases may require both directions (applying should rules in rendering document) >> Option 4: schema requires one direction which we consider to be the best, the other direction is optional >> We want to discuss this with David on the call. >> Stephen pointed out that optional relations are ambiguous: if missing is there no relation or is it a missing relation? Action 1: Warren e-mail David directly about how to represent associations. > 5) Future meetings > OGF 41 sessions July 16 or 17 - One session each day at 10:30 slot for 90 minutes (total 2 sessions) - Topics: LDAP, Enumerations, Cloud, JSON Action 1: Shiraz will send meeting coordinates to e-mail list July 8 at the normal time we will discuss/prepare OGF 41 slides: - Florido and JP will discuss draft Enumeration slides - Others with draft slides to discuss are welcome to attend > July 29? We will decide at OGF 41 is this meeting is needed. > OGF 42 September 8-12 in London, http://autonomic-conference.org/ This would be a good meeting due to European representation to have the 2.1 schema and XSEDE profile drafts ready to discuss and release for public comment. Regards, JP and Shiraz