December 2004 - ogsa-wg - lists.ogf.org

Teleconference minutes - 22 December 2004
by Andreas Savva 30 Dec '04

30 Dec '04

Minutes attached. Gridforge location: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20041222/en/1 This was the last call of year. Thanks to all who participated. For your reference the next teleconference is Jan. 5, 2005. Jan. 5 (10am-noon CDT ?) Data design team Jan. 5 (5pm-7pm CDT) Basic profile discussion Jan. 10 (5pm-7pm CDT) Roadmap document discussion Jan. 12 (10am-noon CDT ?) Data design team Jan. 12 (5pm-7pm CDT) Basic profile discussion Jan. 17 (5pm-7pm CDT) EMS design team Happy holidays. -- Andreas Savva OGSA Teleconference 22 December 2004 ==================================== * Participants Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Jem Treadwell (HP) Minutes: Andreas Savva * Minutes for December 20 approved with no changes * OGSA version 1.0 - Reviewed main changes and remaining open issues; also did a number of edits online. - Author/editor re-ordering on first page - Deleted '...purpose and form...' in introduction and changed the way the next version is described. - en-dash to em-dash change for consistency - Requirements section 2.1.: Added 'interoperability' in title - Should be made a separate section in post-v1 versions - Ian's comment on virtualization: post-v1 - Resource management: Changed 'service instances' to 'services' - Reviewed references and style - To do (Andreas) - Figure 2: workflow should be capitalized (Workflow) - Move the copyright and intellectual property notices to the back. - Make sure that spelling is consistent: change english to US spelling - Add MUWS / MOWS references now that WSDM work has reached committee draft. - Add general acknowledgement for public comment reviewers and name Philipp Wieder since he gave very comprehensive comments. - Upload the new draft (draft 21) keeping the changes to draft 20 visible. * Glossary version 1.0 - Reviewed main changes and remaining open issues; also did a number of edits online. - Reviewed references and style. - Reviewed and revised definitions of terms, removed unused ones (e.g., MPICH) and modified others in line with usage (e.g., SLM to refer to manager not management). - To do (Jem) - Add acknowledgement for public comment reviewers - If possible, add all authors in references (do not abbreviate with 'et al'.) Update entries of documents since some have reached stable states. - Upload a new draft (change tracked)

3 4

Profile Definition V1.4
by David Snelling 23 Dec '04

23 Dec '04

Folks, In parallel with my last edit, Ian made a bunch of editorial improvements to section 2 and added a few comments. This version incorporates those changes. Have a happy holiday season. -- Take care: Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com > Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Hayes Park Central Hayes End Road Hayes, Middlesex UB4 8FE +44-208-606-4649 (Office) +44-208-606-4539 (Fax) +44-7768-807526 (Mobile)

1 0

Proposed agenda for Dec. 22nd call
by Hiro Kishimoto 22 Dec '04

22 Dec '04

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on December 22nd Wednesday from 5pm to 7pm (CST). This is the LAST call of the year. The dial-in number for Wednesday. Free: +1-888-452-0308 Intl/Toll: +1-484-644-0505 PIN: 71815 Screen share service will be provided. URL: http://ogsa.glance.net <== ** NEW ADDRESS ** Session key: 1222 See more explanation: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html 1) Early discussion (10 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Telecon minutes approval (Dec. 20 and more) - http://tinyurl.com/5fxfd/minutes-20041220 Jan F2F meeting update (if any) Agenda bashing 2) Revised glossary and OGSA V1 doc introduction (40 min) Introduce revised glossary and version 1.0 and invite people to review it by the first call of next year. - Jem will send out revised glossary before the call. - Andreas will send out revised v1 before the call. 3) Wrap up (10 min) AOB Jan. 5 (10am-noon CDT ?) Data design team Jan. 5 (5pm-7pm CDT) Basic profile discussion Jan. 10 (5pm-7pm CDT) Roadmap document discussion Jan. 12 (10am-noon CDT ?) Data design team Jan. 12 (5pm-7pm CDT) Basic profile discussion Jan. 17 (5pm-7pm CDT) EMS design team ---- Hiro Kishimoto

2 1

Glossary for tonight's discussion
by Jem Treadwell 22 Dec '04

22 Dec '04

Hi, attached is the draft of the Glossary for review on today's call. The main remaining todo is revision of the naming-related terms, and I'm still waiting for some input on that. For those who won't be on the call: everyone have a great holiday! Best regards, - Jem -- Jem Treadwell Hewlett-Packard Company Phone: (732) 577-6043 200 Route 9 North Fax: (732) 577-6003 Manalapan, NJ 07726 E-mail: Jem.Treadwell(a)hp.com

1 0

Profile Definition Document V1.3
by David Snelling 22 Dec '04

22 Dec '04

Folks, Here is the latest version of the Profile description document. There is a whole new section added by Tom "Profile Conformance". I accepted this section and many style edits. The document is clean and fairly easy to read. I have left in, or added, comments that people have raised on email. We will need to address these issue on a call sometime. Comments to the list please. -- Take care: Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com > Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Hayes Park Central Hayes End Road Hayes, Middlesex UB4 8FE +44-208-606-4649 (Office) +44-208-606-4539 (Fax) +44-7768-807526 (Mobile)

1 0

Re: [ogsa-wg] Profile documents
by Ian Foster 22 Dec '04

22 Dec '04

Dave's comment captures a major concern I have about how the profile notion seems to be evolving. A profile, in the sense of the WS-I profiles that formed at least the starting point for our discussion, documents a way of using well-established and widely used specifications. I believe we have fairly broad consensus for that definition. However, we are now introducing the idea of a "draft" profile that does not need to be grounded in adoption. In so doing, I fear that we abandon the discipline that will allow us to ensure that profiles represent authoritative statements on how to build Grid systems. GGFers will conclude that a profile is a way to respectability. We will start to see many proposals for profiles, many with no connection to implementation experience or adoption, and I don't see how we will be able to say yes to some and no to others, as we will have no clear rules for doing so. Working groups will start to produce their own profiles, as well. We will end up with a set of profiles that look as diffuse and ill defined as the current set of GGF working groups. Of course, some will be "draft" and some "recommended", but I think that distinction will be lost on the community. DAIS for me represents an excellent test case for what a profile should be. It's a nice piece of work and has at least one academic implementation. However, it hasn't seen any adoption by database vendors. That to me means that it doesn't belong in a profile. This is not to say at all that DAIS is not valuable, or that the DAIS team should not be working to get DAIS adopted by vendors. It's simply saying that a profile isn't the way to do it. Ian. At 09:22 AM 12/21/2004 +0000, Dave Berry wrote: >I definitely want to allow the DAIS spec in the first data profile. >This is partly the chicken and egg question; if a spec isn't in an OGSA >profile, people will be less inclined to implement it. This is >particularly applicable to the DAIS spec, because we want people to >implement it as part of their DBMS systems, not as a standalone >executable. (This is to avoid unnecessary copying of data in the >implementations). _______________________________________________________________ Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 Globus Alliance, www.globus.org

3 2

RE: [ogsa-wg] Profile documents
by Dave Berry 21 Dec '04

21 Dec '04

On reading Ian's message, I wonder whether I was clear. I want the criteria for *submitting* a recommendation profile proposal to admit a spec that has a single implementation. This document will have to go through the normal process before it can become an actual recommendation. This is a similar (although stricter) process to any other recommendation document in the GGF and similar standards bodies. So this process should be well-understood in the community. The process will be stricter than the existing GGF process fir recommendation documents, at the existing process doesn't require any implementation to exist before submitting a recommendation, and has fewer criteria for acceptance as a recommendation. WS-I is primarily a reactive body. GGF needs to show leadership: we should steer the development of Grid technology. On occasion we will face the "chicken and egg" problem, in which people are reluctant to adopt a specification because it isn't part of a profile, but we can't make it part of a profile because it isn;t widely adopted. The process by which a submission becomes a full recommendation seems to me an excellent way of resolving this issue. Any profile document will exist in 'draft' form before it is submitted as a 'recommendation', just as any other specification. As I understand the aim of the profile template document, it is precisely to specify that profiles must have links to implementation experience and adoption, and to define the rules for creating them; i.e. it specifically addresses the concerns that Ian raises. I don't see a problem with 'draft' documents; everyone knows that documents go through a draft stage. Unless Ian's reference to 'draft' profiles was referring to "Informational" profiles? One concern of Ian's that isn't addressed by the profile template document is which bodies can produce profiles. The intention, I believe, is that the OGSA profiles have to be produced by the OGSA WG. I agree that we need some central body that controls the production of OGSA profiles. Dave. -----Original Message----- From: Ian Foster [mailto:foster@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: 21 December 2004 13:04 To: Dave Berry; d.snelling(a)fle.fujitsu.com Cc: ogsa-wg Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Profile documents Dave's comment captures a major concern I have about how the profile notion seems to be evolving. A profile, in the sense of the WS-I profiles that formed at least the starting point for our discussion, documents a way of using well-established and widely used specifications. I believe we have fairly broad consensus for that definition. However, we are now introducing the idea of a "draft" profile that does not need to be grounded in adoption. In so doing, I fear that we abandon the discipline that will allow us to ensure that profiles represent authoritative statements on how to build Grid systems. GGFers will conclude that a profile is a way to respectability. We will start to see many proposals for profiles, many with no connection to implementation experience or adoption, and I don't see how we will be able to say yes to some and no to others, as we will have no clear rules for doing so. Working groups will start to produce their own profiles, as well. We will end up with a set of profiles that look as diffuse and ill defined as the current set of GGF working groups. Of course, some will be "draft" and some "recommended", but I think that distinction will be lost on the community. DAIS for me represents an excellent test case for what a profile should be. It's a nice piece of work and has at least one academic implementation. However, it hasn't seen any adoption by database vendors. That to me means that it doesn't belong in a profile. This is not to say at all that DAIS is not valuable, or that the DAIS team should not be working to get DAIS adopted by vendors. It's simply saying that a profile isn't the way to do it. Ian. At 09:22 AM 12/21/2004 +0000, Dave Berry wrote: I definitely want to allow the DAIS spec in the first data profile. This is partly the chicken and egg question; if a spec isn't in an OGSA profile, people will be less inclined to implement it. This is particularly applicable to the DAIS spec, because we want people to implement it as part of their DBMS systems, not as a standalone executable. (This is to avoid unnecessary copying of data in the implementations). _______________________________________________________________ Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 Globus Alliance, www.globus.org <http://www.globus.org/>

1 0

Teleconference minutes - Dec. 20, 2004
by Andreas Savva 21 Dec '04

21 Dec '04

Minutes attached. Minutes link: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20041220/en/1 or http://tinyurl.com/5fxfd/minutes-20041220/en/1 Link to reviewed profile template document: http://tinyurl.com/5fxfd/draft-ggf-ogsa-profile-template/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd.

2 1

Profile documents
by Dave Berry 21 Dec '04

21 Dec '04

Dave, I was slightly surprised at a couple of points in your proposed document. I'd be curious to understand the thinking behind them. The most surprising was to allow evolving standards as part of a published recommmendation. Doesn't this undermine the idea of a profile as being a stable entity that implementations can build to with confidence that it won't change underneath them? Related to this was the removal of the "stable" term. If I understand the document correctly, an "evolving" spec only has to exist in a standards body; it doesn't necessarily have to be submitted to that body. In GGF terms, it doesn't have to be submitted as a proposed recommendation. Have I got that right? Or are you using "evolving" where previously we used "stable", and "draft" where we previously used "evolving"? I was also surprised that there are no constraints at all on the specs that can be included in an Informational Profile. I guess that makes sense. I was slightly surprised that no-one challenged this, but I suppose most people are interested in the recommendation profiles. I definitely want to allow the DAIS spec in the first data profile. This is partly the chicken and egg question; if a spec isn't in an OGSA profile, people will be less inclined to implement it. This is particularly applicable to the DAIS spec, because we want people to implement it as part of their DBMS systems, not as a standalone executable. (This is to avoid unnecessary copying of data in the implementations). Best wishes, Dave Berry Research Manager, National e-Science Centre 15 South College St., Edinburgh Tel: +44 131 6514039

1 0

Happy Holidays
by Hiro Kishimoto 20 Dec '04

20 Dec '04

Word from Mark Linesch, GGF chairman. ---- Hiro Kishimoto -----Original Message----- From: Linesch, Mark Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 2:21 AM Subject: [gfsg] Happy Holidays All, As we move into the final days of 2004, I wanted to thank everyone for their many contributions throughout 2004. Please extend my thanks also to the many workgroup and research group leaders and participants who dedicate their time and effort to our community. I am proud to be associated with so many talented and dedicated individuals. Thanks again for all your efforts this year. Here's hoping 2005 brings you and your loved ones much joy and success. Regards, Mark

1 0