Minutes attached. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20060308/en/1 OGSA Teleconference - 8 March 2006 ================================== * Participants Andrew Grimshaw (UVa) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Dave Snelling (Fujitsu) Ellen Stokes (IBM) Jem Treadwell (HP) Jay Unger (IBM) Minutes: Andreas Savva * Summary of Actions Actions: - Jay will look into IBM facilities in Almaden and Santa Theresa. - Hiro/Andreas to confirm whether the availability or not of the Fujitsu facility - Hiro to ask Ravi whether the Intel facility is available * March 6 minutes approved with no changes * April F2F update Discussed possible venues in the Bay area. There was a clear preference for doing the meeting in the Sunnyvale area. It is expected that the site can be confirmed next week. Group chairs should send agenda requests to Hiro. Marvin can probably attend for one day and Andrew would like to arrange that to be Tuesday or Wednesday so that Naming can also be discussed. Actions: - Jay will look into IBM facilities in Almaden and Santa Theresa. - Hiro/Andreas to confirm whether the availability or not of the Fujitsu facility - Hiro to ask Ravi whether the Intel facility is available * "Guidelines for Information Modeling for OGSA Resources" document review Agreed that in the future reviews documents should have line numbers turned on. (Especially early draft documents.) Section by section review, mainly concentrating on Hiro's comments sent to the list. ** Section 1 - 1.2) Title and contents do not match well. The content is along the lines of use cases. - It is an early draft and will be revised. - Need more description on how to do the rendering/data model. Three options were discussed: 1. Rendering as part of the interface specs 2. RM team draws up guidelines 3. DMTF does rendering It was agreed that 1 & 3 are viable options but 2 is not. Some concerns were also raised on the timeliness of option 3. For example it looks like the WS-CIM will take some time to complete. So option 1 might be better for GGF use. - The text under Figure 1 seems to be slightly out of sync with the example in Figure 2. The example should be showing an XML Schema rather than the representation of an instance. ** Section 2 Agreed with Hiro's proposal to re-organize the text to start from modeling and then move to CIM Profiling. In other words identify what is in the domain specific model, identify CIM portions and generate changes/extensions to CIM. In Section 2.1 OGSA resource is used in a different way from the Glossary definition. Fred will review the definitions and also use Jay's description of 'interesting level of resource' from the point of view of the different capabilities. ** Section 3 Section 3.2 describes 2 ways of doing the modeling work. Involving the RM team in each effort does not scale. So there is a clear need to get involvement from more DMTF experts. Ideally the option of involving the RM team should not even appear in the document but it is probably necessary during the spin up phase. Agreed to re-order the text to put the second approach first. State that it is 'preferred'. ** Section 4 Discussed the standardization process. - Should the documents be information or recommendation track? - Recommendation track may be better. Experimental may also be an option. - There is also a question of the document structure and whether the proposal to the DMTF should be a separate document that is referenced by the profile, or part of the profile. - One idea was to package everything together in one profile document, identify the changes to CIM and then summarize the proposed changes to CIM as an appendix. Doing so would provide the necessary context for the work when taking it to DMTF. - In the case of the JSIM change request the document produced within GGF was submitted with a cover document. - What is the interaction between the GGF and DMTF process? For example, what happens when a DMTF TC changes things in the original GGF document for incorporation into CIM. - Early participation or communication with DMTF WG/TC is important so they know a change request is going to be submitted and noone is surprised. - However even in the case of the JSIM proposal where the CGS WG already had a lot of participation from CIM experts there were changed made in DMTF. - It would make it harder to get buy-in from GGF WGs if their work is subject to modification by a process they have no control over. There should be one more section to cover OGSA interface documents. ** Other comments Should this document reference DSP1001 (profile specification usage guide)? - Probably need a simpler profile template that leads to simpler (shorter) profiles. - Ellen is doing the current work in the spirit of the template but tailored to the needs of GGF. - Security section: Change text to discuss 'secure management' and 'management of security' instead - There should be some description of the tools to be used. E.g., RSM, the Cisco tool for CIM profiling if appropriate, etc. * Webcast update - Jem reported that HP has no branding conditions on the slides etc. - April 26 1:30-3:30 EST is the candidate date. In practice presenters should be available from about 1pm. - Andrew Grimshaw agreed to be a presenter. - Dave Snelling may have a conflict that day. - The webcast preparation will be discussed at the F2F. - The latest slide deck is probably the one used for the IPSphere presentation and should be on gridforge. It needs to be updated--- at the very least to remove/reformat any animations. * OGSA 1.5 - no comments * Next call EMS Scenarios