Hi Folks, it seems clear that there needs to be some more impetus to this group at GGF. Here are a couple of ideas which we might take forward/discuss. I'd welcome agreements/disagreements - silence is normally golden but not on email lists!!! Split into a healthGrid group and a life science group (here I'm thinking of a bioinformatics Grid) 1. Let us develop a real HealthGrid with folk who are interested in this area (I am one and we have already built various prototype systems accessing and using "representative" patient data sets using existing solutions across the NHS here in Scotland). 2. Let us develop a real life science Grid. We are interested in this and have bioinformatics data Grids and compute Grids already in place. Is this of interest? I think it will help to make this group have a goal. We might want to agree on the scope of these, e.g. whether we just want to look at exploring basic secure services for access to and usage of healthcare data sets, incorporating anonymisation and de-anonymisation scenarios, data linkage perhaps from patient records to imaging data etc. We are already working with advanced authorisation infrastructures using results from GGF standards groups such as AuthZ and ShibGrid. This group (in my humble opinion should be doing these kinds of things) if it is to be "GGF". If it isn't using GGF standards and technologies then one coule argue that it should be handled separately, e.g. through other conferences and workshops. What do folk think? Rich PS I am happy to provide more information on what we are up to at the National e-Science Centre, and am willing to lead/be involved in both of these Grid development activities if there is interest from folk that it should happen. Let's do stuff!
I like these suggestions because of the word "real." A number of us who are managing real grid infrastructure (TeraGrid, NAREGI, EGEE, OSG, DEISA, APAC, KGrid, ChinaGrid, Taiwan Nat'l Grid, UK NGS) have been working together since SC05 to develop action plans to achieve basic interoperation among our grids in four areas within the next 6-12 months, sooner where possible. We chose four areas to tackle with existing solutions (not waiting for the next best standard)- authentication, data movement, job submission, and information services. At SC05 we identified the areas and wrote draft plans, which are here: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?atid=829&group_id=165&func=browse We held a workshop this week at GGF-16 ("Grid Interoperation NOW") and within a few weeks these plans will firm up based on discussions this week. We are looking to partner with a small number of application teams who need access to resources in multiple Grids. Might be a good match (certainly we are in line with your thinking below). The project is here: forge.ggf.org/projects/mgi (in the document area is our report from SC05) There is a mailing list as well - if you are interested send email to majordomo@ggf.org with "subscribe mgi" in the body of the message (MGI = multi grid interop) A workshop report will be out in a week or two as well. CeC On Feb 16, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Richard Sinnott wrote:
Hi Folks, it seems clear that there needs to be some more impetus to this group at GGF.
Here are a couple of ideas which we might take forward/discuss. I'd welcome agreements/disagreements - silence is normally golden but not on email lists!!!
Split into a healthGrid group and a life science group (here I'm thinking of a bioinformatics Grid)
1. Let us develop a real HealthGrid with folk who are interested in this area (I am one and we have already built various prototype systems accessing and using "representative" patient data sets using existing solutions across the NHS here in Scotland).
2. Let us develop a real life science Grid. We are interested in this and have bioinformatics data Grids and compute Grids already in place.
Is this of interest? I think it will help to make this group have a goal. We might want to agree on the scope of these, e.g. whether we just want to look at exploring basic secure services for access to and usage of healthcare data sets, incorporating anonymisation and de-anonymisation scenarios, data linkage perhaps from patient records to imaging data etc.
We are already working with advanced authorisation infrastructures using results from GGF standards groups such as AuthZ and ShibGrid. This group (in my humble opinion should be doing these kinds of things) if it is to be "GGF". If it isn't using GGF standards and technologies then one coule argue that it should be handled separately, e.g. through other conferences and workshops.
What do folk think?
Rich
PS I am happy to provide more information on what we are up to at the National e-Science Centre, and am willing to lead/be involved in both of these Grid development activities if there is interest from folk that it should happen. Let's do stuff!
I see that this would definitely be in the scope of the life sciences grid (#2 below) since this area is more HPC and large scale genome data sets oriented. I'd be interested in seeing how we could submit some BLAST jobs (protein and nucleotide based) across all of these resources. (We already access and use the NGS in the UK). Other bioinformatics applications and services would also welcomed... I believe that the healthGrid will have a different flavour (it is much more likely to have very fine grained authorisation requirements and be targeted to health data sets/standards). R. -----Original Message----- From: Catlett Charlie [mailto:catlett@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Thu 16/02/2006 21:50 To: Richard Sinnott Cc: Catlett Charlie; lsg-rg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [lsg-rg] new impetus...?[MESSAGE NOT SCANNED] I like these suggestions because of the word "real." A number of us who are managing real grid infrastructure (TeraGrid, NAREGI, EGEE, OSG, DEISA, APAC, KGrid, ChinaGrid, Taiwan Nat'l Grid, UK NGS) have been working together since SC05 to develop action plans to achieve basic interoperation among our grids in four areas within the next 6-12 months, sooner where possible. We chose four areas to tackle with existing solutions (not waiting for the next best standard)- authentication, data movement, job submission, and information services. At SC05 we identified the areas and wrote draft plans, which are here: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?atid=829&group_id=165&func=browse We held a workshop this week at GGF-16 ("Grid Interoperation NOW") and within a few weeks these plans will firm up based on discussions this week. We are looking to partner with a small number of application teams who need access to resources in multiple Grids. Might be a good match (certainly we are in line with your thinking below). The project is here: forge.ggf.org/projects/mgi (in the document area is our report from SC05) There is a mailing list as well - if you are interested send email to majordomo@ggf.org with "subscribe mgi" in the body of the message (MGI = multi grid interop) A workshop report will be out in a week or two as well. CeC On Feb 16, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Richard Sinnott wrote:
Hi Folks, it seems clear that there needs to be some more impetus to this group at GGF.
Here are a couple of ideas which we might take forward/discuss. I'd welcome agreements/disagreements - silence is normally golden but not on email lists!!!
Split into a healthGrid group and a life science group (here I'm thinking of a bioinformatics Grid)
1. Let us develop a real HealthGrid with folk who are interested in this area (I am one and we have already built various prototype systems accessing and using "representative" patient data sets using existing solutions across the NHS here in Scotland).
2. Let us develop a real life science Grid. We are interested in this and have bioinformatics data Grids and compute Grids already in place.
Is this of interest? I think it will help to make this group have a goal. We might want to agree on the scope of these, e.g. whether we just want to look at exploring basic secure services for access to and usage of healthcare data sets, incorporating anonymisation and de-anonymisation scenarios, data linkage perhaps from patient records to imaging data etc.
We are already working with advanced authorisation infrastructures using results from GGF standards groups such as AuthZ and ShibGrid. This group (in my humble opinion should be doing these kinds of things) if it is to be "GGF". If it isn't using GGF standards and technologies then one coule argue that it should be handled separately, e.g. through other conferences and workshops.
What do folk think?
Rich
PS I am happy to provide more information on what we are up to at the National e-Science Centre, and am willing to lead/be involved in both of these Grid development activities if there is interest from folk that it should happen. Let's do stuff!
Richard- I agree. When we begin to gather application partners for early painful experiments I'll make sure to ping this list- CeC On Feb 16, 2006, at 4:03 PM, Richard Sinnott wrote:
I see that this would definitely be in the scope of the life sciences grid (#2 below) since this area is more HPC and large scale genome data sets oriented. I'd be interested in seeing how we could submit some BLAST jobs (protein and nucleotide based) across all of these resources. (We already access and use the NGS in the UK). Other bioinformatics applications and services would also welcomed...
I believe that the healthGrid will have a different flavour (it is much more likely to have very fine grained authorisation requirements and be targeted to health data sets/standards).
R.
-----Original Message----- From: Catlett Charlie [mailto:catlett@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Thu 16/02/2006 21:50 To: Richard Sinnott Cc: Catlett Charlie; lsg-rg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [lsg-rg] new impetus...?[MESSAGE NOT SCANNED]
I like these suggestions because of the word "real."
A number of us who are managing real grid infrastructure (TeraGrid, NAREGI, EGEE, OSG, DEISA, APAC, KGrid, ChinaGrid, Taiwan Nat'l Grid, UK NGS) have been working together since SC05 to develop action plans to achieve basic interoperation among our grids in four areas within the next 6-12 months, sooner where possible. We chose four areas to tackle with existing solutions (not waiting for the next best standard)- authentication, data movement, job submission, and information services.
At SC05 we identified the areas and wrote draft plans, which are here:
https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?atid=829&group_id=165&func=browse
We held a workshop this week at GGF-16 ("Grid Interoperation NOW") and within a few weeks these plans will firm up based on discussions this week.
We are looking to partner with a small number of application teams who need access to resources in multiple Grids.
Might be a good match (certainly we are in line with your thinking below). The project is here:
forge.ggf.org/projects/mgi (in the document area is our report from SC05)
There is a mailing list as well - if you are interested send email to majordomo@ggf.org with "subscribe mgi" in the body of the message (MGI = multi grid interop)
A workshop report will be out in a week or two as well.
CeC
On Feb 16, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Richard Sinnott wrote:
Hi Folks, it seems clear that there needs to be some more impetus to this group at GGF.
Here are a couple of ideas which we might take forward/discuss. I'd welcome agreements/disagreements - silence is normally golden but not on email lists!!!
Split into a healthGrid group and a life science group (here I'm thinking of a bioinformatics Grid)
1. Let us develop a real HealthGrid with folk who are interested in this area (I am one and we have already built various prototype systems accessing and using "representative" patient data sets using existing solutions across the NHS here in Scotland).
2. Let us develop a real life science Grid. We are interested in this and have bioinformatics data Grids and compute Grids already in place.
Is this of interest? I think it will help to make this group have a goal. We might want to agree on the scope of these, e.g. whether we just want to look at exploring basic secure services for access to and usage of healthcare data sets, incorporating anonymisation and de-anonymisation scenarios, data linkage perhaps from patient records to imaging data etc.
We are already working with advanced authorisation infrastructures using results from GGF standards groups such as AuthZ and ShibGrid. This group (in my humble opinion should be doing these kinds of things) if it is to be "GGF". If it isn't using GGF standards and technologies then one coule argue that it should be handled separately, e.g. through other conferences and workshops.
What do folk think?
Rich
PS I am happy to provide more information on what we are up to at the National e-Science Centre, and am willing to lead/be involved in both of these Grid development activities if there is interest from folk that it should happen. Let's do stuff!
participants (2)
-
Catlett Charlie -
Richard Sinnott