[Posting on behalf of Andrew] ------- Forwarded message ------- From: "Andrew Grimshaw" <grimshaw@virginia.edu> To: "Andreas Savva" <andreas.savva@jp.fujitsu.com>, jsdl-wg@ogr.org Cc: "'Mark Morgan'" <mmm2a@virginia.edu>, "'Morris Riedel'" <m.riedel@fz-juelich.de> Subject: JSDL 2.0 BOF? Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:09:53 +0900 Andreas, I’d really like to have a JSDL 2.0 BOF/WG meeting in Brussels to seriously start looking at how to upgrade JSDL to accommodate lessons learned in use. I’m sure you all have discussed this. Is there a plan on how to proceed? Or can I work with anybody on moving forward? JSDL has been very successful – but we need to keep up with new requirements of others will define their own specs. A -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd
Andrew, JSDL-WG has been discussing seriously, as far as I am concerned, for the last couple of OGFs what to do once the Activity specification is done--now in PC so that's ok. There is a fairly well understood set of next steps. I'll outline the top two here: 1. SPMD 2.0 - Start with an experience document for SPMD 1.0 and use the requirements generated for SPMD 2.0 - Morris has the most comprehensive set of requirements, which he presented to JSDL-WG last March. One can say that there is some work along this path already, albeit very slowly. We need some additional involvement. - I'll take the blame for not starting the experience document over the summer. Busy with real work (tm). 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. - Requires cooperation with BES-WG since we have to narrow down to the set useful for job submission - GFD.137 outlines using GLUE and XPath/XQuery for resource requirements. Personally I *don't care* how requirements are expressed as long as there is sufficient consensus. This usually means that there are people willing to work on something... I know people like to say 'JSDL 2.0' but, really, in the best 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. Do you have other ideas on what should be at the top of list? Andreas On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:19:48 +0900, Andreas Savva <andreas.savva@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
[Posting on behalf of Andrew]
------- Forwarded message ------- From: "Andrew Grimshaw" <grimshaw@virginia.edu> To: "Andreas Savva" <andreas.savva@jp.fujitsu.com>, jsdl-wg@ogr.org Cc: "'Mark Morgan'" <mmm2a@virginia.edu>, "'Morris Riedel'" <m.riedel@fz-juelich.de> Subject: JSDL 2.0 BOF? Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:09:53 +0900
Andreas,
I’d really like to have a JSDL 2.0 BOF/WG meeting in Brussels to seriously start looking at how to upgrade JSDL to accommodate lessons learned in use. I’m sure you all have discussed this. Is there a plan on how to proceed? Or can I work with anybody on moving forward? JSDL has been very successful – but we need to keep up with new requirements of others will define their own specs.
A
-- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd
Another thing I could think of is some kind of harmonization (maybe even adoption) between Activity Instance and the BES Activity within BES 1.1/2.0. -Alexander Am 30.09.2010 um 04:21 schrieb Andreas Savva:
Andrew,
JSDL-WG has been discussing seriously, as far as I am concerned, for the last couple of OGFs what to do once the Activity specification is done--now in PC so that's ok. There is a fairly well understood set of next steps. I'll outline the top two here:
1. SPMD 2.0 - Start with an experience document for SPMD 1.0 and use the requirements generated for SPMD 2.0 - Morris has the most comprehensive set of requirements, which he presented to JSDL-WG last March. One can say that there is some work along this path already, albeit very slowly. We need some additional involvement. - I'll take the blame for not starting the experience document over the summer. Busy with real work (tm).
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. - Requires cooperation with BES-WG since we have to narrow down to the set useful for job submission - GFD.137 outlines using GLUE and XPath/XQuery for resource requirements. Personally I *don't care* how requirements are expressed as long as there is sufficient consensus. This usually means that there are people willing to work on something...
I know people like to say 'JSDL 2.0' but, really, in the best 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.
Do you have other ideas on what should be at the top of list?
Andreas
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:19:48 +0900, Andreas Savva <andreas.savva@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
[Posting on behalf of Andrew]
------- Forwarded message ------- From: "Andrew Grimshaw" <grimshaw@virginia.edu> To: "Andreas Savva" <andreas.savva@jp.fujitsu.com>, jsdl-wg@ogr.org Cc: "'Mark Morgan'" <mmm2a@virginia.edu>, "'Morris Riedel'" <m.riedel@fz-juelich.de> Subject: JSDL 2.0 BOF? Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:09:53 +0900
Andreas,
I’d really like to have a JSDL 2.0 BOF/WG meeting in Brussels to seriously start looking at how to upgrade JSDL to accommodate lessons learned in use. I’m sure you all have discussed this. Is there a plan on how to proceed? Or can I work with anybody on moving forward? JSDL has been very successful – but we need to keep up with new requirements of others will define their own specs.
A
-- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd -- jsdl-wg mailing list jsdl-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsdl-wg
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 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. -- Nothing is ever easy.
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 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.
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 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
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 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
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.
Hi Andreas, please excuse, I mixed things up. Maybe I try to clarify: a) We have the list of next JSDL issues for quite some time, but nobody was really taking them up. b) Andrew would like to discuss about JSDL 2.0. So I deliberatly ignored the "BoF" issue and was referring to a proper JSDL-WG session to re-discuss the list we have AND see what Andrew's idea for a next version of JSDL are. I think this is covered by the current JSDL scope. In case there is a common understanding that such a discussion on a future version of JSDL is out of the scope of the current JSDL-WG, than I haven't seen this yet. I am definitly not in favour of seperating a) and b) by doing a BoF separated from the core JSDL-WG. Best regards, Philipp. Am 01.10.10 16:12, schrieb Andreas Savva:
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
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
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
Hi Andreas,
please excuse, I mixed things up.
Maybe I try to clarify: a) We have the list of next JSDL issues for quite some time, but nobody was really taking them up. b) Andrew would like to discuss about JSDL 2.0.
So I deliberatly ignored the "BoF" issue and was referring to a proper JSDL-WG session to re-discuss the list we have AND see what Andrew's idea for a next version of JSDL are. I think this is covered by the current JSDL scope.
In case there is a common understanding that such a discussion on a future version of JSDL is out of the scope of the current JSDL-WG, than I haven't seen this yet.
I am definitly not in favour of seperating a) and b) by doing a BoF separated from the core JSDL-WG.
Best regards, Philipp.
Am 01.10.10 16:12, schrieb Andreas Savva:
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:
Dear All,
then I would suggest we get a slot, collect topics and prioritize
Hi Philipp, We haven't had a call recently so I guess it is to be expected that people might not share the same understanding of the state of the group. Allow me to outline where I think the group is. There is a list of issues, which have been discussed over the last few OGFs and narrowed down at the last OGF to the specific work items I described in the original reply to Andrew. Andrew mentioned PGI-WG requirements. We've engaged with PGI-WG for more than a year and their requirements are a major driver: Morris and I had an informal discussion at OGF27 (Banff); he gave a detailed presentation illustrated with schema examples at OGF28 (Munich); we narrowed down to the specific work items mentioned previously at OGF29 (Chicago). At OGF29 Andrew's group was also represented. Mark gave a presentation on their JSDL experiences and there seemed to be agreement on the next steps. So I find it difficult to understand why we should go back to talking about issues and prioritizing. We should start working on specific deliverables. This is not to say that we are not open to hearing about new issues or proposals; we have a tracker to log stuff and discuss them in due course. But we are well past the planning phase at the moment. If we reset every time someone comes along with a new idea nothing will get done. I did not say JSDL 2 is out of scope of the WG. I said we are taking an incremental approach to deliver it. If there is sufficient disagreement with this approach then I suggested that a bof should be held. Take care, Andreas On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:01:57 +0200, Philipp Wieder <philipp.wieder@udo.edu> wrote: 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.
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
Am 01.10.10 15:03, schrieb Andrew Grimshaw: 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.
All, the main question is whether there is enough fodder for calling something 2.0. Since JSDL is largely extension-based, I feel that it will be difficult to justify this (unless there are really urgent larger changes in the current core spec)... Best, Alexander Am 03.10.2010 um 04:21 schrieb Andreas Savva:
Hi Philipp,
We haven't had a call recently so I guess it is to be expected that people might not share the same understanding of the state of the group. Allow me to outline where I think the group is.
There is a list of issues, which have been discussed over the last few OGFs and narrowed down at the last OGF to the specific work items I described in the original reply to Andrew.
Andrew mentioned PGI-WG requirements. We've engaged with PGI-WG for more than a year and their requirements are a major driver: Morris and I had an informal discussion at OGF27 (Banff); he gave a detailed presentation illustrated with schema examples at OGF28 (Munich); we narrowed down to the specific work items mentioned previously at OGF29 (Chicago). At OGF29 Andrew's group was also represented. Mark gave a presentation on their JSDL experiences and there seemed to be agreement on the next steps.
So I find it difficult to understand why we should go back to talking about issues and prioritizing. We should start working on specific deliverables. This is not to say that we are not open to hearing about new issues or proposals; we have a tracker to log stuff and discuss them in due course. But we are well past the planning phase at the moment. If we reset every time someone comes along with a new idea nothing will get done.
I did not say JSDL 2 is out of scope of the WG. I said we are taking an incremental approach to deliver it. If there is sufficient disagreement with this approach then I suggested that a bof should be held.
Take care, Andreas
Hi Andreas,
please excuse, I mixed things up.
Maybe I try to clarify: a) We have the list of next JSDL issues for quite some time, but nobody was really taking them up. b) Andrew would like to discuss about JSDL 2.0.
So I deliberatly ignored the "BoF" issue and was referring to a proper JSDL-WG session to re-discuss the list we have AND see what Andrew's idea for a next version of JSDL are. I think this is covered by the current JSDL scope.
In case there is a common understanding that such a discussion on a future version of JSDL is out of the scope of the current JSDL-WG, than I haven't seen this yet.
I am definitly not in favour of seperating a) and b) by doing a BoF separated from the core JSDL-WG.
Best regards, Philipp.
Am 01.10.10 16:12, schrieb Andreas Savva:
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:
Dear All,
then I would suggest we get a slot, collect topics and prioritize
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:01:57 +0200, Philipp Wieder <philipp.wieder@udo.edu> wrote: 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.
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
Am 01.10.10 15:03, schrieb Andrew Grimshaw: 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. -- jsdl-wg mailing list jsdl-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsdl-wg
+1 from my side. Everything else is out of scope, isn't it... -Alexander Am 01.10.2010 um 12:37 schrieb Philipp Wieder:
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 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
participants (5)
-
alexander.papaspyrou＠tu-dortmund.de -
Andre Merzky -
Andreas Savva -
Andrew Grimshaw -
Philipp Wieder