Hi all, Forgive me if I'm reiterating on a topic. I've only be reading up on JSDL since yesterday. I have a few concerns about the DataStaging section. Primarily, I'm wondering if it really makes sense to have it as part of the core schema. I think it would be better to have extensions like POSIXApplication for more specific DRM configurations. Here are some of my thoughts: 1) There's still controversy over whether staging should or should not be integrated into a DRM. As far as I can tell, for example, the BES doesn't have any plans to implement staging. DRMMA makes this optional. If BES ends up using JSDL, wouldn't this be a violation of the spec which requires each element to be supported in some way? 2) There's no distinction between a stage-in or stage-out flavor of the staging directives. I guess it's up to the service to decipher this so that it can perform the staging at the appropriate point in the life cycle. 3) I don't particularly like that the DataStaging sections include an option to remove the file at the end of the job. If I'm staging out data then this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I'd much prefer a separate section which explicitly lists all the files that are to be removed from the submission machine after the job has been completed. This would also cover the case of data that is created rather than staged in but still needs to be removed after job completion. 4) Based on the current GRAM incarnation, it would be nice to let RFT's transfer request description extend a base staging schema and then use that in the JSDL document rather than adding a bunch of extensions to DataStaging. This is similar to how I'd want to go about using POSIXApplication. Thanks in advance for any responses... Peter