Dear All,
then I would suggest we get a slot, collect topics and prioritize them, and make an agenda for OGF 30. I assume we will have a substantial amount of people there and other may join remotely.
Best regards, Philipp.
Am 01.10.10 15:03, schrieb Andrew Grimshaw:
All, I very much would like to get the JSDL 2.0 work going. I'm sure we can get a slot from Joel. Speaking as the Architecture area director, JSDL 1.0 and its extensions has been very successful, but along the way several impediments to continued use for production systems have been identified (see PGI discussions of almost a year ago.) JSDL is the glue (no pun intended) that holds job interop together. So keeping it up-to-date with emerging or deferred requirements is essential.
I know I would attend a session with a list of items from Mark Morgan (as long as it is not on Friday, when I will be on a plane.)
A
-----Original Message----- From: jsdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:jsdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Philipp Wieder Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 6:38 AM To: Andre Merzky Cc: OGF JSDL-WG ML Subject: Re: [jsdl-wg] JSDL 2.0 BOF?
Count me in for work on JSDL. The question is whether we should (still can) ask Joel for a slot.
Best regards, Philipp.
Am 30.09.10 18:43, schrieb Andre Merzky:
Quoting [Andreas Savva] (Sep 30 2010):
2. Adoption of GLUE XML schema - Pending on a GLUE normative XML schema published by *OGF*. Work on this seems to have restarted recently, but I am not sure what the exact state is.
AFAIK, the GLUE WG plans to release a draft b y OGF-30.
I know people like to say 'JSDL 2.0' but, really, in the best
Philipp & Andrew I described the outcome of discussions from previous OGFs in my last email. I see no reason to collect topics and prioritize. There is a work list already. If you want to have a JSDL-WG session then it should be a working session to work on already identified items. If you want to have an open-ended session then I think you really should have a bof that is unaffiliated with JSDL-WG. Andreas On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 15:08:31 +0200, Philipp Wieder <philipp.wieder@udo.edu> wrote: tradition
of
divide-and-conquer there are a set of well-understood steps that can
evolve things forward. As such I do not see the need for a BOF. I think it would actually be counterproductive because we'd go back to talking about
what to do rather than doing it. The real question is whether there are people willing to work on these. A related question is whether they would
be willing to work in JSDL-WG. At the last OGF it wasn't clear to me that
this is the case.
+1
Cheers, Andre.
-- jsdl-wg mailing list jsdl-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsdl-wg
-- jsdl-wg mailing list jsdl-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsdl-wg
-- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd.