Hi Steve, My comments -- [Slide 3] Consider adding "Conditional data staging" - that is, allow some form of conditional processing of data staging. For example, on stage in, it would be useful to support the capability of the same data being staged from more than one source in case one of the sources is unavailable. On stage out, it would be useful to only stage out data if the program ran correctly - possibly even detecting a result value and staging data out based on that value. Regarding the item "Relationship to CDDLM" - The relationship regarding data staging with CDDLM is confusing to me. I believe that data staging is a "provisioning" issue yet we seem to accept that data staging is acceptable within JSDL and other forms of provisioning are not. Maybe we should be identifying required resources in JSDL that reference entities within CDDLM. These entities could be anything related to provisioning. Even the concept of the machine attributes could be handled this way. Maybe JSDL should get out of the business of identifying specific resource information and just refer to resources known to CDDLM. [Slide 4] Title should be Application types and adjust body of slide Consider "workflow" as a job type. Workflows can typically be invoked as a web service, but we delineate other job types such as "Scripting Language" that can be specified as command line jobs so why not specify workflow as a job type. [Slide 5] Regarding "workflow" - maybe a JSDL document is just a workflow activity. [Slide 6] Regarding "Scheduling to ..." - would data availability be covered under "events"? [Overall] There are lots of good thoughts here; and lots of opportunity for more hard work. I continue to be concerned with the large number of GGF specifications and their relationships. OGSA-BES is trying to integrate components created using these specs, but I believe that we still need a better understanding of the overall architecture that binds these components. Best regards, Fred Fred Brisard fred.brisard@ca.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-jsdl-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-jsdl-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of A S McGough Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 7:03 AM To: JSDL WG Subject: [jsdl-wg] Future plans for JSDL All, We had a session here at GGF16 where we brain stormed some ideas for where JSDL should go next. This also included some material which had come up from the last OGSA f2f meeting. Attached are the edited slides from this session which lists some of the areas where people think that JSDL should look into. The things that need doing now include: 1) Request from the list for items that were missed out from the session. 2) Classify these items as: a) Out of Scope (TM) b) Extensions for JSDL 1.0 c) New functionality for JSDL 2.0 d) Separate to JSDL versions (eg items for a primer document) 3) Prioritise the items. From the session parallel jobs seemed to be the thing most people wanted next. steve.. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr A. Stephen McGough http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~asm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Technical Coordinator, London e-Science Centre, Imperial College London, Department of Computing, 180 Queen's Gate, London SW7 2BZ, UK tel: +44 (0)207-594-8409 fax: +44 (0)207-581-8024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------