Andrew, Good idea. The most commonly accepted language for design within the our arena is UML. I think the exercise we performed at the face2face creating sequence diagrams for the various EMS scenarios proved to be very valuable. Perhaps some UML exercises that are larger in scope could be very productive. Other diagram types, and other design areas of the grid. I would be more than happy to participate in such an effort. I think a very good design area to document would be security as well. Pete Ziu 571.235.0208 (c) mailto:pete@ziu.net (h) mailto:5712350208@tmomail.net (sms) "Andrew Grimshaw" <grimshaw@cs.virginia.edu> Sent by: owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org 09/07/2005 06:42 PM To "'Ogsa-Wg'" <ogsa-wg@gridforum.org> cc bcc Subject [ogsa-wg] Update to OGSA 1.5 All, While explaining OGSA to some very technical folks last week it came up that the 1.0 document does not describe an “object model” so to speak… in other words, what are the “atoms”, what is the minimum we assume, etc. For example, we assume: that resources have interfaces, that they process messages, that their behavior may be history dependent, that they are referenced with EPR’s, that the atoms may have a unique AbstractName that they may be both servers and clients of other services We also seem to assume that there is some mechanism to get/set some form of metadata (resource properties) We seem to want to be able to find out what interfaces are supported (it is in base profile …. And I think should be in any profile ? opinion) We seem to assume a factory pattern ? though it is not explicit, and not part of lifetimes I am sure there are others. Comments? Should I write something up along this line for inclusion in the 1.5 document? Andrew