Hi all, Given that no meeting material is available for tomorrow. I propose to postpone Monday's agenda to this Thursday. If you will write up materials for this discussion, please let Andreas and me know by email. Andreas will prepare Thursday agenda accordingly. (Since I will be at DMTF Board of Director meeting in Austin, I cannot make Thursday call). Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
Hi all,
The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on June 5th Monday from 5pm to 7pm (CDT).
The dial-in number for Monday; US: +1 718 3541071 (New York) or +1 408 9616509 (San Jose) UK: +44 (0)207 3655269 (London) Japan: +81 (0)3 3570 8225 (Tokyo) PIN: 4371991
Screen share service will be provided. URL: http://ogsa.glance.net Session key: 0605 See more explanation: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html
1) Early discussion (20 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Telecon minutes approval (June 1st) https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20060601/en/1 July F2F update if any Action Items status review (see the bottom of this email) Agenda bashing
2) Information model (Ellen and Fred, 60 min) - Information Modeling in OGSA - Position Paper https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/Info_Model_position_pa...
- BES Information Model https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/BES_info_model
The main issue discussed was the difference between the approach proposed for a (minimal/)general element that can be used to express <name,value> pairs, with the value part being typeless VS extension using an xsd:any and defining a schema. - (See also minutes of GGF17 and April 27.) - There has been experience with both approaches - Difference is relying on explicit typing vs convention; and checking types when validating vs matching time (fail in a subtle fashion) - Discussed whether stronger typing with a schema makes for easier checking. Having an xsd:any doesn't help as much as people might think for checking types; matching might still fail later. - It is still necessary to define conventions. Need to define a set of <name,value> conventions - Andrew's issue is whether the value (in (<name,value>) is typed. - Type checking information is needed somewhere; and wouldn't want to have it only in the code
- Jay will contact Platform (Chris Smith) and Condor (Miron Livny) to get feedback on pros / cons of the two rendering approaches - Jay is following up. He has a meeting (6/12) with Miron and will arrange to get some feedback; but probably not by next call.
- Darren/Andreas will take the Modeling position paper and discuss it within the JSDL-WG as well From April 24 call - No JSDL call yet.
3) Wrap up (10 min) AOB
<*NEXT CALL*> June 8 (Thu): EMS scenarios (Steven and Andreas) June 12 (Mon): CDDLM & EMS (Jun and Hiro) June 15 (Thu): Security & BSP Public Comments review (Frank and Takuya) Architecture & Glossary 1.5 (Andreas and Jem) June 19 (Mon): Information model (Ellen and Fred) Roadmap 1.1 (Hiro, ChrisJ, and Jem) June 22 (Thu): EMS scenarios (Steven and Andreas) June 26 (Mon): Security & BSP Public Comments review (Frank and Takuya) CDDLM & EMS (Jun and Hiro)
<*ACTION ITEMS*> From May 22 call - Jay will contact Platform (Chris Smith) and Condor (Miron Livny) to get feedback on pros / cons of the two rendering approaches - Darren/Andreas will take the Modeling position paper and discuss it within the JSDL-WG as well
From April 5 F2F meeting - Marvin to send e-mail that explains concerns on compliance suite by GGF & EGA.
Deferred - Frank to write up and send to the list a one page summary of the authorization call-out proposal. (April 24 call, postpone until June 14) - Jay check and find out relatively small funding to Globus to develop document on their security work (April 6 F2F) - Hiro to schedule a discussion in the OGSA F2F after the converged specs drafts are released to discuss which sets of specs to use within OGSA. (April 4 F2F)