associations in JSON rendering (RE: NOTES: GLUE WG teleconference, Tuesday, July 1, 2014)
1 Jul
2014
1 Jul
'14
7:01 p.m.
David, Shiraz, and I emailed a bit and regarding 4) below, I think we're happy with Option 4. This seems a good middle ground between interoperability (the consumer knows that certain association directions will always be there) and flexibility (a project can also represent an association in the opposite direction). Does that work for everyone? Warren ________________________________________ From: glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org [glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] on behalf of Navarro, John-Paul F. [navarro@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 10:33 AM To: OGF GLUE Working Group Subject: [glue-wg] NOTES: GLUE WG teleconference, Tuesday, July 1, 2014 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 _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
1 Jul
1 Jul
7:38 p.m.
Makes sense to me. JP On Jul 1, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Warren Smith <wsmith@tacc.utexas.edu> wrote: > > David, Shiraz, and I emailed a bit and regarding 4) below, I think we're happy with Option 4. This seems a good middle ground between interoperability (the consumer knows that certain association directions will always be there) and flexibility (a project can also represent an association in the opposite direction). > > Does that work for everyone? > > > Warren > > > ________________________________________ > From: glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org [glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] on behalf of Navarro, John-Paul F. [navarro@mcs.anl.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 10:33 AM > To: OGF GLUE Working Group > Subject: [glue-wg] NOTES: GLUE WG teleconference, Tuesday, July 1, 2014 > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > glue-wg mailing list > glue-wg@ogf.org > https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
4079
Age (days ago)
4079
Last active (days ago)
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Navarro, John-Paul F. -
Warren Smith