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) -- Hiro Kishimoto