I thought this was what Andrew meant. Anyway, it is important that people taking part in the new WG realise that they are constrained by decisions made in the overall group. They can of course raise issues to be decided in the overall group, with the BEM service(s) as examples of why the issues are important. But we don't want to end up in a situation where (say) DAIS implements the "multiple arguments" pattern one way and OGSA-BEM implements it a different way. Dave.

-----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of David Snelling

I would agree with Ian here based on our agreement at the Washington F2F. There we agreed the our ptofiles would be consistent with the architecture. I believe this should also apply to these spawned WGs. Technically however, the forming WG could charter its self to be constrained to the current EMS model. I would prefer that charter support the same "invariant" model we use for profiles. This would allow the EMS model to be modified in light of lessons learned in the new WG.