On Mar 21, Jon MacLaren loaded a tape reading:
Hi Karl,
Ok, I wasn't at the face-to-face meetings - I should have read the minutes. But then I was out of the loop for a while during those times. But where would someone new to the group pick up this information? It is likely that a new user would read the group charter, the use cases, and then the example in the specification. Lets look at each of these in turn.
We're in agreement. That's why I said people do not understand how to use WS-Agreement and GRAAP-WG needs to do a better job of communicating its design goals and expected usage scenarios. :-)
Why don't you put together a simple informational document that shows the process of a user creating a job using WS-Agreement, the staging in of files, the execution, and staging out of results. Something that shows all the interactions between the user, the agreement provider, the resource manager, etc. The authors of the spec obviously have very clear intentions about this - they should be clearly stated somewhere!
I think there was a momentary identity crisis in GRAAP-WG back about 1.5 years ago, when the generalization thought process was in full swing and some folks started reacting negatively to domain-specific instantiations as "out of scope." I hope we have that out of our systems now...
I think that such a document would be very valuable at this point. It could also be a valuable input to the BES group, to show you their intent - I didn't pick up on your viewpoint from your presentation in Seoul, and I think I was pretty awake at that point (you were lucky :-).
Really?? I feel like I am in the Twilight Zone... I thought I said explicitly that WS-Agreement is a generalization of the GRAM pattern for "creating a job" and could use JSDL instead of our GRAM job language. I then added that this had to be weighed against their milestones to decide whether to do it or take a more traditional approach, and gave due warning about the difficulty of rendering either type of interface on a short schedule, i.e. the devil is in the details, and the traditional approach is not necessarily the conservative approach since it can lead to repetition of mistakes.
The group might also want to consider updating the charter.
Jon.
karl -- Karl Czajkowski karlcz@univa.com