Hi Andreas, I joined the call 30 minutes late and missed the minutes approval. Actually, I have a couple of comments on them and proposed to fix them.
- Teleconference minutes for Sep 28, Oct 12 and 17 approved with no changes
(1) Oct. 12, GGF15 and F2F evaluation; Number of attendees is "50" instead of "15." "GGF participant number where down" should read "GGF participant number *were* down." (2) Oct. 12, Next F2F; Steven also ask me to schedule BES and info model sessions early in the week (if possible).
- GGF15 minutes approved with no changes - F2F minutes approved with no changes
(3) Participants for Oct. 6 meeting; Affiliation of Wolfgang Ziegler should read "Fraunhofer." (4) Review of Ellen's Approach slides; In order to avoid possible confusion, I want to use term "CIM Profile" instead of just "Profile." Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Andreas Savva wrote:
Minutes attached.
https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20051019/en/1
-- Andreas Savva
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OGSA Teleconference - 19 October 2005 =====================================
* Participants
Mike Behrens (R2AD, LLC) Andrew Grimshaw (UVa) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Allen Luniewski (IBM) Tom Maguire (EMC) Takuya Mori (NEC) Steven Newhouse (OMII) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Ellen Stokes (IBM) Ravi Subramaniam (Intel) Jay Unger (IBM) Pete Ziu (Northrop Grumman)
Minutes: Andreas Savva
* Minutes approval
- Teleconference minutes for Sep 28, Oct 12 and 17 approved with no changes - GGF15 minutes approved with no changes - F2F minutes approved with no changes
* Management Developement Conference presentation
- Confirmed Ravi as the presenter - There is an existing slide deck. Andrew will upload it to Gridforge and the group will review it next week.
- Hiro to add the review of this presentation on next Monday's call. Scheduled time 20 minutes.
* EMS discussion
- Review of UML sequence diagram previously sent out by Steven N. - Background: - Initially generated during last F2F and partly revised afterwards. - This is scenario 2.3 - Clarified that this is *a* scenario not *the* scenario to address this particular stage of the EMS Roadmap. There may be other sequences. - The JSDL document is initially abstract and becomes more concrete, for example, as a result of the EPS invocation.
- The EMS Roadmap should also list the JSDL features that should be supported and make clearer what is becoming more concrete.
- Where is ACS? - ACS is part of a later scenario according to this Roadmap.
- Why not include CSG in this diagram? - EPS is seen as a black box at this point. It may be calling CSG behind the scenes but this interaction does not need to be shown in this diagram. - Why not rename EPS to RSS then? - RSS is the name of the group not of a service or interface.
- The positioning of Agreement - Donal pointed out on the list that the return of EPS may be some form of Agreement. - Details are not clear yet. May have to put together another diagram to show this. Or it may be clearer in later stages of the Roadmap, e.g., when including reservations in the sequences.
- Ravi volunteered to refine some of these scenarios. He will provide text for the EMS Roadmap.
- Why is the job and its management not shown in the sequence diagram? - Its representation and management are out of scope of this stage of the Roadmap. - Is a sequence diagram of stopping the job also out of scope at this stage? Yes.
- The EMS Architecture document should include more detail to describe everything in the sequence diagram, e.g., the ordering policy mentioned in the call to EPS. - It is not the intention for the EMS Architecture document to be normative but it should be more detailed than what's in OGSA Architecture (1.0 or later). The OGSA Architecture document should contain a higher level summary of what will (eventually) be in the EMS Architecture document. - Starting point: - The EMS section from OGSA 1.0 (or 1.5); and - the older EMS draft (pre-OGSA 1.0) (Andreas has sent this to Steven. It is somewhat dated but useful as background information.)
- OGSA-WG should agree on a common UML tool so as to share the work of drawing up these sequence diagrams. - Criteria: free for use and reasonable performance - Andreas has a list of (free) tools and will send it out. - JUDE is being used by some people. It comes in various versions with the free versions having some limitations.
* Charter
- Andrew to take the OGSA-WG charter to the GFSG for approval.
* Other business
- Postponed the Information model discussion for next week.