Well, I guess the thing that confuses me is whether or not it is SOP to re-open an issue that was discussed previously because a new person has re-raised that issue. I'll bow to whatever the majority thinks is best of course, but it seems to me that you can't reopen an issue everytime a new person re-raises it or you risk the possibility of continuously cycling on it. New information should always be considered, but if an issue gets re-raised that has already been discussed fully and voted on, then it doesn't make sense to re-discuss it. Just my 2 cents worth... -Mark
-----Original Message----- From: ogsa-bes-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-bes-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Foster Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 9:39 PM To: Mail list for ogsa-bes-wg working group; 'Mail list for ogsa-bes-wg working group'; ogsa-bes-wg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG] Tracker Resolution Descriptions
Mark:
I guess that I am asking that we re-open the issue, then.
Ian.
At 07:47 PM 9/5/2006 -0400, Mark Morgan wrote:
I'm not sure what level of "addressing" is meant here, but my recollection/belief was that it was addressed in the group in so much as the topic was discussed at the last face-to-face and that the appearance of the GetAttributesDocument was the result of that discussion. We haven't as a group discussed the email that Peter sent out yet but it is my belief that doing so is essentially a rehash of discussions previously had.
-Mark
-----Original Message----- From: ogsa-bes-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-bes-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Foster Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 1:42 PM To: Mail list for ogsa-bes-wg working group; ogsa-bes-wg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG] Tracker Resolution Descriptions
Has Peter's comment been discussed?
He advocates (I believe) that we should not include the GetAttributesDocument operation. Instead, any particular BES should choose (if they wish) to provide access to attributes via an appropriate resource model-specific operations.
* A WS-Transfer-based BES would use GET * A WSRF-based BES would use WS-ResourceProperties * A resource-model-free BES might define a GetAttributesDocument operation * etc.
This seems a good proposal to me.
Ian.
At 03:09 PM 9/2/2006 -0600, Peter G. Lane wrote:
2) Why are we still essentially advocating WS-Transfer's attribute model by having the GetAttributesDocument operation? In my opinion it is not necessary for minimal interop, and makes WS-Transfer's Get operation redundant. Is part of the problem that we haven't defined any interop standards yet?
_______________________________________________________________
Ian Foster -- Weblog: http://ianfoster.typepad.com <http://ianfoster.typepad.com/> <http://ianfoster.typepad.com/> Computation Institute: www.ci.uchicago.edu <http://www.ci.uchicago.edu/> <http://www.ci.uchicago.edu/> & www.ci.anl.gov <http://www.ci.anl.gov/> <http://www.ci.anl.gov/> Argonne: MCS/221, 9700 S. Cass Ave, Argonne, IL 60439 Chicago: Rm 405, 5640 S. Ellis Ave, Chicago, IL 60637 Tel: +1 630 252 4619 --- Globus Alliance: www.globus.org <http://www.globus.org/> <http://www.globus.org/>
-- ogsa-bes-wg mailing list ogsa-bes-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-bes-wg
_______________________________________________________________ Ian Foster -- Weblog: http://ianfoster.typepad.com <http://ianfoster.typepad.com/> Computation Institute: www.ci.uchicago.edu <http://www.ci.uchicago.edu/> & www.ci.anl.gov <http://www.ci.anl.gov/> Argonne: MCS/221, 9700 S. Cass Ave, Argonne, IL 60439 Chicago: Rm 405, 5640 S. Ellis Ave, Chicago, IL 60637 Tel: +1 630 252 4619 --- Globus Alliance: www.globus.org <http://www.globus.org/>