Folks, On 7 Mar 2005, at 22:39, Ian Foster wrote:

a) It's important to give time for other people to present. E.g., I suspect Karl Czajkowski will want to present on our behalf. There will likely be others. People should be able to sign up ahead of the meeting and get a time allocation.

Agreed. The NAREGI team have already posted a request to contribute and Intel/Fujistu would also like to present. I think we are looking at 10 minute slots.

b) I don't see how we can require a priori that "the output of the OGSA-BEM will fit into the overall OGSA EMS architecture." I don't know what that means, and in any case, we need to see what people come up with.

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.

c) It is important to say something in the BOF description as to what we expect the scope of "basic execution management service" to be. E.g., "focused on defining Web services interfaces for job submission, monitoring, and management."

Yes this will be required by our ADs as part of avoiding overlap with other existing work, e.g. DRAMMA. -- Take care: Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com > Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Hayes Park Central Hayes End Road Hayes, Middlesex UB4 8FE +44-208-606-4649 (Office) +44-208-606-4539 (Fax) +44-7768-807526 (Mobile)

One more point: I don't think this should be called the OGSA-BEM BOF or WG.

FYI: The OGSA Resource Usage Service that has been a WG since GGF6. I've heard no complaints about this name. We've been quiet recently but are meeting at this GGF...

As we've discussed on several occasions, things may be approved as part of OGSA when completed and widely adopted. We can't pre-approve things, or imply that we are pre-approving things, as the name OGSA-BEM does.

Surely, you mean approved as part of a profile? OGSA-WG controlling that makes sense. Does the OGSA-WG control other WGs? I thought that was what GFSG (or whatever it may soon be called) does...? But maybe that too has changed! Regards, Steven -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Steven Newhouse Tel:+44 (0)2380 598789 Deputy Director, Open Middleware Infrastructure Institute (OMII) Suite 6005, Faraday Building (B21), Highfield Campus, Southampton University, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK

Ian, a) As discussed on last nights telecom, we are going to allocate up to 30 minutes for other presenters. I have already sent email to the two people who have requested time. b) The whole point of this working group IS to fit into the overall architecture. That is how the charter SHOULD read. The charter is the contract the working group makes with the steering committee, and limits the scope of the working group. c) I don't understand item c, the draft charter document clearly states "Focus/Purpose The OGSA Execution Management Services (EMS) design team has developed as part of the OGSA V1 document a draft set of EMS services to support a wide range of use-cases. The objective of the proposed OGSA-BES working group is to focus on a minimal sub-set of the EMS services and develop a recommendations document (i.e., specification) for them. The working group will work closely with the WG/RGs within GGF, e.g. OGSA WG, JSDL WG, SAGA RG, GRAAP WG and also widely used pioneering projects; e.g. Globus, UNICORE, Condor, Legion, Platform, SGE, PBS, OMII, and others as appropriate. The milestones are particularly ambitious in order to support the overall OGSA roadmap and timeline. Fortunately there has already been significant discussion with the OGSA-WG on the overall EMS architecture, as well as discussions with other interested parties such as OMII and EGEE. Scope The scope of the proposed working group is on the definition of services for service instantiation and management, with a particular focus initially on legacy "job" services. For example, using the OGSA V1 nomenclature, service containers and jobs. " Andrew _____ From: owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Foster Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 5:39 PM To: Andrew Grimshaw; ogsa-wg@ggf.org; 'Karl Czajkowski'; Kazushige Saga Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Proposed (DRAFT) Agenda for Basic EM BOF Three comments: a) It's important to give time for other people to present. E.g., I suspect Karl Czajkowski will want to present on our behalf. There will likely be others. People should be able to sign up ahead of the meeting and get a time allocation. b) I don't see how we can require a priori that "the output of the OGSA-BEM will fit into the overall OGSA EMS architecture." I don't know what that means, and in any case, we need to see what people come up with. c) It is important to say something in the BOF description as to what we expect the scope of "basic execution management service" to be. E.g., "focused on defining Web services interfaces for job submission, monitoring, and management." Ian. At 05:31 PM 3/7/2005 -0500, Andrew Grimshaw wrote: The objective of the BOF is to form the OGSA Basic Execution Management Service Working Group (OGSA-BEM). The output of the OGSA-BEM will fit into the overall OGSA EMS architecture, as initially described in the OGSA V1 Document. It is expected that the OGSA EMS architecture will evolve over time and that evolution will eventually need to be incorporated. Such incorporation may not take place in this working group depending on whether OGSA-BEM completes before changes are made in the overall OGSA-EMS. Proposed Agenda Presentation of GGF IP Rules Pass around sign-up sheet Background on OGSA EMS Basic Execution Management A Focus on Minimal Services Draft Service Containers description Charter discussion Should charter be extended to include Actors? Should the charter be extended to include any form of agreements? Milestones Scheduling of calls _______________________________________________________________ Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 Globus Alliance, www.globus.org <http://www.globus.org/>