On Mar 21, Jon MacLaren loaded a tape reading: ...
A strawman interface was presented, but this was (I felt) little more than "these are the things that BES should support". Pre-conceived is a little harsh - everything presented can be changed.
Well, I didn't mean it with the negative connotation you are reading... I guess I should have chosen a better adjective. I meant that the only real consensus I have heard so far seems to center on some very traditional rendering. I am slowly learning to be conservative in assuming there is agreement where it hasn't been explicitly recognized. :-) I think this traditionalist approach relates directly to the aggressive schedule, and is not necessarily a bad thing for a starting point. However, to get everyone interested in BES to work through and understand the WS-Agreement rendering well enough to accept or reject it would put the remaining BES activity on a pace that I have yet to see happen in GGF! I'm just trying to share my view on it to set expectations in GRAAP... we need to make sure we get WS-Agreement right and on the next editing cycle; focusing too much on BES when things are this uncertain may not be productive in bringing WS-Agreement to closure. (I would love to see it adopted for BES, but I would not be willing to put that on the critical path unless BES is willing to delay its milestones if necessary. If their schedules are really so tight, having a "BES 2.0" that uses WS-Agreement might be wiser.)
3) There was a bit of the lingering anti-wsrf sentiment floating around Seoul.
There has been some excellent discussion on the OGSA-WG list just prior to this meeting on whether or not WS-RF is necessary, and if it is, what is it necessary for? But to be fair, it's not "sentiment" - there are some very astute people saying that the Grid community doesn't need WS-RF. Unfortunately, in Seoul, there was practically no debate on this subject (at least, not inside of the WG sessions!). I would expect to see this being played out in the OGSA-BES list. It's a debate that needs to happen.
Well, I would hope BES only considers its applicability to job submission/management! If there needs to be a larger architectural debate like whether "the Grid community [needs] WS-RF", it needs to happen in a broader context. I only brought it up because WS-Agreement is obviously WSRF-based, so in order to adopt WS-Agreement soon, the BES group would have to agree on the underlying technologies almost immediately.
Jon.
karl -- Karl Czajkowski karlcz@univa.com