Hi all, I just created the charter BoF report and would like to ask you to have a look at it. In addition, I edited the charter according to the comments we received. You find both files attached. Thanks, Mathias
Mathias Dalheimer wrote:
I just created the charter BoF report and would like to ask you to have a look at it. In addition, I edited the charter according to the comments we received. You find both files attached.
The Minutes and Summary are fine. The updated charter draft looks mostly good, but I suggest a few changes: Charter->Scope, second paragraph, first alteration better worded as: and other working groups working on the OGSA-EMS architecture. Also elide reference to subgroups. They're not official entities. Also might slant things to indicate that this is not a constraint on us (i.e. that we can work with other groups as well, if appropriate). Charter->Goals, second full paragraph, last sentence better worded as: In order to foster collaboration with the OGSA-WG, we will provide the OGSA-WG with service descriptions as an informational document. Query: should that second-to-last word be "informal"? I think it looks like we're nearly there. Hooray! Donal.
Hi! Important: I think now all people have subscribed to the new list, so this will be the last cross-posting to the old and new list. Please use only the new one from now on! Donal K. Fellows wrote:
Mathias Dalheimer wrote:
I just created the charter BoF report and would like to ask you to have a look at it. In addition, I edited the charter according to the comments we received. You find both files attached.
The Minutes and Summary are fine. The updated charter draft looks mostly good, but I suggest a few changes:
OK, I integrated them (see attached version). I will accept comments until next monday, then I will send both charter and BoF report to our chairs. Cheers, Mathias
Mathias Dalheimer wrote:
OK, I integrated them (see attached version). I will accept comments until next monday, then I will send both charter and BoF report to our chairs.
Remaining issues as I see them. 1: Are we correct in saying "OGSA-WG and its subgroups" or should we say "OGSA-WG and its affiliated groups"? To me, "subgroups" implies that we believe that there is a strong relationship there, when I think that the truth is closer to being a "confederation of the willing". This is one to check with Hiro. 2: We do not want our milestones to imply that we may not start on our main deliverables until GGF15! :^) Best if we reworded that to say instead that we will have started on our major deliverables by then. Anyone think I'm way off base with this? Donal.
Hi again! Donal K. Fellows wrote:
Remaining issues as I see them.
1: Are we correct in saying "OGSA-WG and its subgroups" or should we say "OGSA-WG and its affiliated groups"? To me, "subgroups" implies that we believe that there is a strong relationship there, when I think that the truth is closer to being a "confederation of the willing". This is one to check with Hiro. I agree, "affiliated groups" fits better. Maybe Hiro can also state his oppinion.
2: We do not want our milestones to imply that we may not start on our main deliverables until GGF15! :^) Best if we reworded that to say instead that we will have started on our major deliverables by then. I think this is an important topic and would like to have oppinions by others on the list as well. My oppinion is:
We now have to evaluate the material of GSA and build upon this to write our service description (*). For me, the service description is very important. The OGSA Roadmap document (*) states: "Service Description documents, which are written and maintained by the appropriate domain-expert working groups, describe the services in the area in natural language, listing the interfaces and operations defined by each service." So, this is basically the foundation upon which we will define the services. From my point of view, we should use the time until GGF15 to agree upon the service description. This might also involve to check whether we can satisfy all requirements from our own schedulers etc. The deliverables will then specify the services further. So, I think the service description has several functions: (1) Clarify how we expect the services behave. (2) Clarify the relation to other OGSA services, e.g. the Information Service. (3) Provides an instrument for us to clarify what we want to do. Once we have the service description, a lot of important work is already done. Basically, we are starting to work on the main deliverables, as we will be able to reuse the content. Formally, I don't think it makes sense to start with the main deliverables now. But, nevertheless, we should state more clearly what we expect the service description to be (maybe I am wrong with my understanding). I tried to add an additional scentence to the charter, please find it attached. Have a nice weekend, Mathias (*) links to the documents on gridforge: - Use-cases: https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewCategory.php?group_id=133&category_id=714 - Requirements document draft: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/gsa-rg/document/GSA-Requirements/en/1 - OGSA Roadmap: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-roadmap...
Hi Mathias and Donal,
I agree, "affiliated groups" fits better. Maybe Hiro can also state his oppinion.
Since all WG/RG stand on an equal footing, I prefer and am using "fellow WG." In addition to this, I have two minor comments on proposed charter. (1) service description document "OGSA-RSS WG will provide it to OGSA-WG" sounds like one-way conversation. I prefer something like. "OGSA-RSS WG will provide and have a joint review of a service description." (2) The latest 7 question has an OGSA-WG relation query as a part of Question 4. I've updated Question 4. However, since your answer has already covered this issue, no modification is necessary. My edits is in attached document, please have a look. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Mathias Dalheimer wrote:
Hi again!
Donal K. Fellows wrote:
Remaining issues as I see them.
1: Are we correct in saying "OGSA-WG and its subgroups" or should we say "OGSA-WG and its affiliated groups"? To me, "subgroups" implies that we believe that there is a strong relationship there, when I think that the truth is closer to being a "confederation of the willing". This is one to check with Hiro.
I agree, "affiliated groups" fits better. Maybe Hiro can also state his oppinion.
2: We do not want our milestones to imply that we may not start on our main deliverables until GGF15! :^) Best if we reworded that to say instead that we will have started on our major deliverables by then.
I think this is an important topic and would like to have oppinions by others on the list as well. My oppinion is:
We now have to evaluate the material of GSA and build upon this to write our service description (*). For me, the service description is very important. The OGSA Roadmap document (*) states:
"Service Description documents, which are written and maintained by the appropriate domain-expert working groups, describe the services in the area in natural language, listing the interfaces and operations defined by each service."
So, this is basically the foundation upon which we will define the services. From my point of view, we should use the time until GGF15 to agree upon the service description. This might also involve to check whether we can satisfy all requirements from our own schedulers etc. The deliverables will then specify the services further. So, I think the service description has several functions:
(1) Clarify how we expect the services behave. (2) Clarify the relation to other OGSA services, e.g. the Information Service. (3) Provides an instrument for us to clarify what we want to do.
Once we have the service description, a lot of important work is already done. Basically, we are starting to work on the main deliverables, as we will be able to reuse the content. Formally, I don't think it makes sense to start with the main deliverables now.
But, nevertheless, we should state more clearly what we expect the service description to be (maybe I am wrong with my understanding). I tried to add an additional scentence to the charter, please find it attached.
Have a nice weekend, Mathias
(*) links to the documents on gridforge: - Use-cases: https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewCategory.php?group_id=133&category_id=714
- Requirements document draft: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/gsa-rg/document/GSA-Requirements/en/1 - OGSA Roadmap: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-roadmap...
Hi! Thanks for your feedback, I think you're right. I attached the (hopefully) final charter. Since I would like to submit the charter to our area directors, I would like to ask all people in OGSA-RSS to have a look. I will submit the charter on friday. Thanks, Mathias Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
I agree, "affiliated groups" fits better. Maybe Hiro can also state his oppinion.
Since all WG/RG stand on an equal footing, I prefer and am using "fellow WG."
In addition to this, I have two minor comments on proposed charter.
(1) service description document "OGSA-RSS WG will provide it to OGSA-WG" sounds like one-way conversation. I prefer something like.
"OGSA-RSS WG will provide and have a joint review of a service description."
(2) The latest 7 question has an OGSA-WG relation query as a part of Question 4.
I've updated Question 4. However, since your answer has already covered this issue, no modification is necessary.
My edits is in attached document, please have a look.
Mathias Dalheimer wrote:
Thanks for your feedback, I think you're right. I attached the (hopefully) final charter. Since I would like to submit the charter to our area directors, I would like to ask all people in OGSA-RSS to have a look. I will submit the charter on friday.
Looks good enough to me. Submit it. Donal.
Thanks Mathias, I've re-read your draft charter and want to ask you one more twist.
(1) service description document I prefer something like.
"OGSA-RSS WG will provide and have a joint review of a service description."
Actually this sentence means that OGSA-WG will have joint review only on service description but don't on CGS/ESP interface and protocol specifications. I think this is wrong. May I propose one more time; "we will provide and have a joint review of a service description (as an informational document) and of CGS & ESP recommendation specifications. Sorry for nits picking, but we are almost there. ---- Hiro Kishimoto Mathias Dalheimer wrote:
Hi!
Thanks for your feedback, I think you're right. I attached the (hopefully) final charter. Since I would like to submit the charter to our area directors, I would like to ask all people in OGSA-RSS to have a look. I will submit the charter on friday.
Thanks, Mathias
Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
I agree, "affiliated groups" fits better. Maybe Hiro can also state his oppinion.
Since all WG/RG stand on an equal footing, I prefer and am using "fellow WG."
In addition to this, I have two minor comments on proposed charter.
(1) service description document "OGSA-RSS WG will provide it to OGSA-WG" sounds like one-way conversation. I prefer something like.
"OGSA-RSS WG will provide and have a joint review of a service description."
(2) The latest 7 question has an OGSA-WG relation query as a part of Question 4.
I've updated Question 4. However, since your answer has already covered this issue, no modification is necessary.
My edits is in attached document, please have a look.
Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
Actually this sentence means that OGSA-WG will have joint review only on service description but don't on CGS/ESP interface and protocol specifications. I think this is wrong.
May I propose one more time;
"we will provide and have a joint review of a service description (as an informational document) and of CGS & ESP recommendation specifications.
I do not think it is necessary to be *that* specific in the charter. It's not a deliverable, after all. :^) Donal.
Hi Donal, Let me make myself clear. In the following sentence, "CGS & ESP recommendation specifications" are intented to mean RSS-WG's two main deliverables. 1. D1: Specification of CSG interface and protocol 2. D2: Specification of EPS interface and protocol If you think these terms are not interchangable, we should use "D1 and D2" instead. IMHO, it is very important and should be clearly stated in the charter document that RSS-WG and OGSA-WG will collaborate and have a joint review to develop specifications which are manure, consisitent, fit well in the OGSA EMS architecture. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Donal K. Fellows wrote:
Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
Actually this sentence means that OGSA-WG will have joint review only on service description but don't on CGS/ESP interface and protocol specifications. I think this is wrong.
May I propose one more time;
"we will provide and have a joint review of a service description (as an informational document) and of CGS & ESP recommendation specifications.
I do not think it is necessary to be *that* specific in the charter. It's not a deliverable, after all. :^)
Donal.
Donal, Mathias Consider adding a statement in Focus/Purpose similar to that in the BES-WG charter:
Of particular importance is the interaction with the OGSA-WG. The [RSS-WG] will have a review meeting (possibly on the phone) before document publications.
Then there would be no need to list separately the documents that will be reviewed with OGSA-WG. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-bes-wg/document/OGSA-BES-WG_Charte... Andreas Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
Hi Donal,
Let me make myself clear. In the following sentence, "CGS & ESP recommendation specifications" are intented to mean RSS-WG's two main deliverables.
1. D1: Specification of CSG interface and protocol 2. D2: Specification of EPS interface and protocol
If you think these terms are not interchangable, we should use "D1 and D2" instead.
IMHO, it is very important and should be clearly stated in the charter document that RSS-WG and OGSA-WG will collaborate and have a joint review to develop specifications which are manure, consisitent, fit well in the OGSA EMS architecture.
Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto
Donal K. Fellows wrote:
Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
Actually this sentence means that OGSA-WG will have joint review only on service description but don't on CGS/ESP interface and protocol specifications. I think this is wrong.
May I propose one more time;
"we will provide and have a joint review of a service description (as an informational document) and of CGS & ESP recommendation specifications.
I do not think it is necessary to be *that* specific in the charter. It's not a deliverable, after all. :^)
Donal.
-- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd
Andreas, It works for me. ---- Hiro Kishimoto Andreas Savva wrote:
Donal, Mathias
Consider adding a statement in Focus/Purpose similar to that in the BES-WG charter:
Of particular importance is the interaction with the OGSA-WG. The [RSS-WG] will have a review meeting (possibly on the
phone) before document publications.
Then there would be no need to list separately the documents that will be reviewed with OGSA-WG.
https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-bes-wg/document/OGSA-BES-WG_Charte...
Andreas
Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
Hi Donal,
Let me make myself clear. In the following sentence, "CGS & ESP recommendation specifications" are intented to mean RSS-WG's two main deliverables.
1. D1: Specification of CSG interface and protocol 2. D2: Specification of EPS interface and protocol
If you think these terms are not interchangable, we should use "D1 and D2" instead.
IMHO, it is very important and should be clearly stated in the charter document that RSS-WG and OGSA-WG will collaborate and have a joint review to develop specifications which are manure, consisitent, fit well in the OGSA EMS architecture.
Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto
Donal K. Fellows wrote:
Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
Actually this sentence means that OGSA-WG will have joint review only on service description but don't on CGS/ESP interface and protocol specifications. I think this is wrong.
May I propose one more time;
"we will provide and have a joint review of a service description (as an informational document) and of CGS & ESP recommendation specifications.
I do not think it is necessary to be *that* specific in the charter. It's not a deliverable, after all. :^)
Donal.
Andreas Savva wrote:
Consider adding a statement in Focus/Purpose similar to that in the BES-WG charter:
Of particular importance is the interaction with the OGSA-WG. The [RSS-WG] will have a review meeting (possibly on the phone) before document publications.
Then there would be no need to list separately the documents that will be reviewed with OGSA-WG.
That works much better for me. Donal.
Hi all, hi Andreas, Andreas Savva wrote:
Of particular importance is the interaction with the OGSA-WG. The [RSS-WG] will have a review meeting (possibly on the
phone) before document publications.
Thank you for this suggestion. I think this is consensus now. I attached the edited version and will submit the document to our area directors tomorrow. Cheers, Mathias
participants (4)
-
Andreas Savva -
Donal K. Fellows -
Hiro Kishimoto -
Mathias Dalheimer