+3

I think it's really important to confine specs to their narrowest possible scope.

I agree. Reduce the ammunition that you are giving out that could be used against you! Steven -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Steven Newhouse Mob:+44(0)7920489420 Tel:+44(0)23 80598789 Director, Open Middleware Infrastructure Institute-UK (OMII-UK) c/o Suite 6005, Faraday Building (B21), Highfield Campus, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK

I have not heard a dissenting vote yet. Anyone out there? ________________________________ From: ogsa-bes-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-bes-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Smith Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 4:03 PM To: Ian Foster; Ellen Stokes; Andrew Grimshaw; ogsa-bes-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG] re-evaluate removal of container model from BES spec appendix +1 -- Chris On 27/9/06 07:51, "Ian Foster" wrote: I'd like to argue strongly against this. As I said earlier, I think this is good material and I don't have any objection to it being published as an OGSA informational document. I just don't think it belongs in a BES specification, which should contain the minimum information needed to specify BES. Ian. At 09:49 AM 9/27/2006 -0500, Ellen Stokes wrote: Andrew, Per our discussion at the OGSA F2F Sep 14, I'd like the workgroup to re-evaluate the decision to remove the (general) container model from the BES specification appendix. The intent of this appendix is to provide the container model as an 'informational' appendix so it can be submitted to DMTF as concrete proposal for inclusion in the DMTF CIM and a context for why a container model is necessary. The inclusion of the model in the BES spec does not imply that OGSA must implement this CIM container model to implement BES; it is merely an abstraction for a general container model where BES can provide context for the need and implementation of a specific container model. If this point doesn't come across in the appendix text, I have no problem modifying the text. I know the BES calls are generally scheduled for Thursdays; however, I am not available this Thursday Sep 28. Let me know when this topic can be scheduled as part of BES workgroup call. Ellen Ellen Stokes STSM, Grid Computing TC Member, IBM Academy of Technology Austin, Texas tl 678 0552 outside +1 512 838 0552 stokese@us.ibm.com -- 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/ 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

Hi all, I would keep this informative appendix in the BES spec. As Ellen explained, this appendix is an important tool to ask DMTF to extend/adjust their CIM model to meet BES needs. Thus it will be the first success example of OGSA information/data modeling works by healthy collaboration between OGF and DMTF. Since this appendix is *informative*, the overview section should read:

The Container Model describes the managed objects and their relationships for defining the execution environment for activities in a grid. The CIMv2.10 final schema is the foundation for the development of this model. It is expected that this model will be folded into CIMv2.12 preliminary. This appendix is informative.

Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Maguire_Tom@emc.com wrote:

I'm usually one of the first to suggest removing non-normative text from a specification. However, I don't understand why an appendix of this nature is so objectionable. Sure it could be a separate info document, but is it that horrific to have an appendix that describes extensions/utilizations of a standard information model for containers?

Tom

_______________________________________________ Tom Maguire +1(845) 729-4806

_____

From: ogsa-bes-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-bes-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Pulsipher_Darren@emc.com Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:53 PM To: ogsa-bes-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG] re-evaluate removal of container model from BESspec appendix

I have not heard a dissenting vote yet. Anyone out there?

_____

From: ogsa-bes-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-bes-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Smith Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 4:03 PM To: Ian Foster; Ellen Stokes; Andrew Grimshaw; ogsa-bes-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG] re-evaluate removal of container model from BES spec appendix

+1

-- Chris

On 27/9/06 07:51, "Ian Foster" wrote:

I'd like to argue strongly against this. As I said earlier, I think this is good material and I don't have any objection to it being published as an OGSA informational document. I just don't think it belongs in a BES specification, which should contain the minimum information needed to specify BES.

Ian.

At 09:49 AM 9/27/2006 -0500, Ellen Stokes wrote:

Andrew,

Per our discussion at the OGSA F2F Sep 14, I'd like the workgroup to re-evaluate the decision to remove the (general) container model from the BES specification appendix.

The intent of this appendix is to provide the container model as an 'informational' appendix so it can be submitted to DMTF as concrete proposal for inclusion in the DMTF CIM and a context for why a container model is necessary.

The inclusion of the model in the BES spec does not imply that OGSA must implement this CIM container model to implement BES; it is merely an abstraction for a general container model where BES can provide context for the need and implementation of a specific container model. If this point doesn't come across in the appendix text, I have no problem modifying the text.

I know the BES calls are generally scheduled for Thursdays; however, I am not available this Thursday Sep 28. Let me know when this topic can be scheduled as part of BES workgroup call.

Ellen

Ellen Stokes STSM, Grid Computing TC Member, IBM Academy of Technology Austin, Texas tl 678 0552 outside +1 512 838 0552 stokese@us.ibm.com -- 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/ 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

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- ogsa-bes-wg mailing list ogsa-bes-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-bes-wg

Hi Tom, Appendix J is just 3 pages and Ellen already commit to update this. I also can join review team. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Maguire_Tom@emc.com wrote:

This appendix needs to have terminology addressed. Appendix J uses the term container which is not used anywhere else in the specification; this creates a bit of a semantic chasm that needs to be bridged. Given the extensive use of the container terminology I believe a fair bit of editing would be necessary to make the appendix consistent with the rest of the specification. This would necessitate another round of detailed reviews of the specification by the WG. I think it comes down to a question of timing wrt included or not. Sorry if I have offended sensibilities with this note....

Tom

_______________________________________________ Tom Maguire +1(845) 729-4806

-----Original Message----- From: Hiro Kishimoto [mailto:hiro.kishimoto@jp.fujitsu.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 9:47 PM To: Maguire, Tom Cc: Pulsipher, Darren; ogsa-bes-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG] re-evaluate removal of container model from BESspec appendix

Hi all,

I would keep this informative appendix in the BES spec. As Ellen explained, this appendix is an important tool to ask DMTF to extend/adjust their CIM model to meet BES needs.

Thus it will be the first success example of OGSA information/data modeling works by healthy collaboration between OGF and DMTF.

Since this appendix is *informative*, the overview section should read:

...

The Container Model describes the managed objects and their relationships for defining the execution environment for activities in a grid. The CIMv2.10 final schema is the foundation for the development of this model. It is expected that this model will be folded into CIMv2.12 preliminary. This appendix is informative.

Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto

...

I'm usually one of the first to suggest removing non-normative text from a specification. However, I don't understand why an appendix of this nature is so objectionable. Sure it could be a separate info document, but is it that horrific to have an appendix that describes extensions/utilizations of a standard information model for containers?

Tom

_______________________________________________ Tom Maguire +1(845) 729-4806

_____

From: ogsa-bes-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-bes-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Pulsipher_Darren@emc.com Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:53 PM To: ogsa-bes-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG] re-evaluate removal of container model from BESspec appendix

I have not heard a dissenting vote yet. Anyone out there?

_____

From: ogsa-bes-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-bes-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Smith Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 4:03 PM To: Ian Foster; Ellen Stokes; Andrew Grimshaw; ogsa-bes-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG] re-evaluate removal of container model from BES spec appendix

+1

-- Chris

On 27/9/06 07:51, "Ian Foster" wrote:

I'd like to argue strongly against this. As I said earlier, I think this is good material and I don't have any objection to it being published as an OGSA informational document. I just don't think it belongs in a BES specification, which should contain the minimum information needed to specify BES.

Ian.

At 09:49 AM 9/27/2006 -0500, Ellen Stokes wrote:

Andrew,

Per our discussion at the OGSA F2F Sep 14, I'd like the workgroup to re-evaluate the decision to remove the (general) container model from the BES specification appendix.

The intent of this appendix is to provide the container model as an 'informational' appendix so it can be submitted to DMTF as concrete

Maguire_Tom@emc.com wrote: proposal

...

for inclusion in the DMTF CIM and a context for why a container model is necessary.

The inclusion of the model in the BES spec does not imply that OGSA must implement this CIM container model to implement BES; it is merely an abstraction for a general container model where BES can provide context for the need and implementation of a specific container model. If this point doesn't come across in the appendix text, I have no problem modifying the text.

I know the BES calls are generally scheduled for Thursdays; however, I am not available this Thursday Sep 28. Let me know when this topic can be scheduled as part of BES workgroup call. Ellen

Ellen Stokes STSM, Grid Computing TC Member, IBM Academy of Technology Austin, Texas tl 678 0552 outside +1 512 838 0552 stokese@us.ibm.com -- 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/ 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

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- ogsa-bes-wg mailing list ogsa-bes-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-bes-wg

Hi Chris, Although this appendix does not help implementors at the present moment, it will serve industry at large (including implementors) well in the long run by achieving consistency between system management standards (DMTF and CIM) and Grid standards (OGF and OGSA). In order to submit and explain our proposal to DMTF, the appendix should be a part of BES specification. ---- Hiro Kishimoto Christopher Smith wrote:

So I'm still not sure that there is general consensus that this should be in the BES specification. I still vote for this information to be in a separate informational document. It doesn't provide any help or guidance to implementers of this specification, and as such is not very helpful in a normative specification.

-- Chris

On 28/9/06 06:22, "Hiro Kishimoto" wrote:

...

Hi Tom,

Appendix J is just 3 pages and Ellen already commit to update this. I also can join review team. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto

Maguire_Tom@emc.com wrote:

...

This appendix needs to have terminology addressed. Appendix J uses the term container which is not used anywhere else in the specification; this creates a bit of a semantic chasm that needs to be bridged. Given the extensive use of the container terminology I believe a fair bit of editing would be necessary to make the appendix consistent with the rest of the specification. This would necessitate another round of detailed reviews of the specification by the WG. I think it comes down to a question of timing wrt included or not. Sorry if I have offended sensibilities with this note....

Tom

_______________________________________________ Tom Maguire +1(845) 729-4806

-----Original Message----- From: Hiro Kishimoto [mailto:hiro.kishimoto@jp.fujitsu.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 9:47 PM To: Maguire, Tom Cc: Pulsipher, Darren; ogsa-bes-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG] re-evaluate removal of container model from BESspec appendix

Hi all,

I would keep this informative appendix in the BES spec. As Ellen explained, this appendix is an important tool to ask DMTF to extend/adjust their CIM model to meet BES needs.

Thus it will be the first success example of OGSA information/data modeling works by healthy collaboration between OGF and DMTF.

Since this appendix is *informative*, the overview section should read:

...

The Container Model describes the managed objects and their relationships for defining the execution environment for activities in a grid. The CIMv2.10 final schema is the foundation for the development of this model. It is expected that this model will be folded into CIMv2.12 preliminary. This appendix is informative. Thanks,

---

Hiro Kishimoto

...

I'm usually one of the first to suggest removing non-normative text from a specification. However, I don't understand why an appendix of this nature is so objectionable. Sure it could be a separate info document, but is it that horrific to have an appendix that describes extensions/utilizations of a standard information model for containers?

Tom

_______________________________________________ Tom Maguire +1(845) 729-4806

_____

From: ogsa-bes-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-bes-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Pulsipher_Darren@emc.com Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:53 PM To: ogsa-bes-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG] re-evaluate removal of container model from BESspec appendix

I have not heard a dissenting vote yet. Anyone out there?

_____

From: ogsa-bes-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-bes-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Smith Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 4:03 PM To: Ian Foster; Ellen Stokes; Andrew Grimshaw; ogsa-bes-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG] re-evaluate removal of container model from BES spec appendix

+1

-- Chris

On 27/9/06 07:51, "Ian Foster" wrote:

I'd like to argue strongly against this. As I said earlier, I think this is good material and I don't have any objection to it being published as an OGSA informational document. I just don't think it belongs in a BES specification, which should contain the minimum information needed to specify BES.

Ian.

At 09:49 AM 9/27/2006 -0500, Ellen Stokes wrote:

Andrew,

Per our discussion at the OGSA F2F Sep 14, I'd like the workgroup to re-evaluate the decision to remove the (general) container model from the BES specification appendix.

The intent of this appendix is to provide the container model as an 'informational' appendix so it can be submitted to DMTF as concrete

Maguire_Tom@emc.com wrote: proposal

...

for inclusion in the DMTF CIM and a context for why a container model is necessary.

The inclusion of the model in the BES spec does not imply that OGSA must implement this CIM container model to implement BES; it is merely an abstraction for a general container model where BES can provide context for the need and implementation of a specific container model. If this point doesn't come across in the appendix text, I have no problem modifying the text.

I know the BES calls are generally scheduled for Thursdays; however, I am not available this Thursday Sep 28. Let me know when this topic can be scheduled as part of BES workgroup call. Ellen

Ellen Stokes STSM, Grid Computing TC Member, IBM Academy of Technology Austin, Texas tl 678 0552 outside +1 512 838 0552 stokese@us.ibm.com -- 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/ 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

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- ogsa-bes-wg mailing list ogsa-bes-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-bes-wg -- ogsa-bes-wg mailing list ogsa-bes-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-bes-wg