-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 (I don't seem to have any record of minutes having been taken or sent out for this session - if I'm wrong or just missed an e-mail in the endless shuffle of my inbox, feel free to correct me, but this document may be taken as a poor-man's minutes, rambling, incoherent, and just plain wrong though it may be in parts - I was calling in and so wasn't always able to catch all of the discussion.) First, I'd like to again thank all the participants in the e-mail and the F2F discussions for helping us to move this forward. Regarding the F2F Naming session, I think the RNS/WS-Directory portion was a very productive discussion, and it certainly seemed to me that there is general agreement on the need for a refactored or decomposed version of RNS, as well as agreement on the general components that will be required. I will refer to the portion of the re-factored RNS that provides the POSIX directory-like functionality RNS-Directory, for lack of a better term at this point. In fact, the sense I got was that not only is it generally agreed that this type of thing is needed, but that it is needed as soon as possible; I certainly feel this way, since much of the work of the GFS-WG should ideally consist of the definition of a "profile" for GFS usage of RNS- Directory. Mark Morgan made it abundantly clear that WS-Directory is not currently being offered as a proposed GGF standard document, but is merely intended to provide a somewhat simpler, and in fact quite minimal, example of a hierarchically structured set of human-readable names which are associated with XML documents containing at least an EPR and, as of the most recent version, arbitrary XML, as the entry document definition includes an "{xsd:any} *" component. I, for one, feel that WS-Directory will be a a valuable reference point in the development of the directory service component of RNS 2.0, or whatever it ends up being called. Initial action items coming out of the discussion were that Mark Morgan and Manuel Pereira were to do some communication to try and get synchronized on at least some initial ideas about what might need to come out of RNS and how it might need to be changed in order to get to this magical future invention I call RNS-Directory. I've offered to help in whatever capacity I can, including arranging for mailing lists and conference calls if necessary, in addition to offering my opinions, which by this point is probably assumed ;-). My personal feeling was that the most difficult issue to resolve was the question of where the re-factoring effort should live and how it should proceed; , but it seemed to be generally agreed that GFS-WG is too far down the GGF hierarchy to be responsible for something that, as someone put it most appropriately (sorry for not recognizing your voice), needs the level of visibility associated with being at the OGSA-* level. At the same time, Mark Morgan suggested that perhaps OGSA-Naming wasn't necessarily a perfect fit for this effort, as there isn't quite the right overlap with the efforts and individuals currently in OGSA-Naming. The last suggestion I heard clearly in toto was that it should be "officially" part of OGSA-Naming, but that it may need separate conference calls, GGF sessions, and other devices to maintain at least some separation from the mainstream OGSA-Naming work. Manuel explained to me, as a relative newcomer, the original agreement that the GFS-WG would be responsible for development of RNS, and that OGSA-Naming would then take over maintenance of it once it had become a GFD, and something like this still seems like a good idea, as long as we can maintain the required level of visibility. I'd appreciate it if someone who was there could let us all know what, if any, final decisions were made regarding how this process will proceed. I haven't had a chance to look at WS-Enumeration, but it's on my reading list - at the least, it should be useful in thinking about how to integrate the directory work with separate and more generally applicable iteration or enumeration standards. Thanks, On Apr 5, 2006, at 12:53 PM, Dave Berry wrote:

Hi Chris,

Thanks for this note. I hope the F2F discussion is productive.

I will repeat my suggestion that the naming team should look at WS-Enumeration to see if it, or an extension thereof, satisfies the requirements for an iteration interface. I have no idea whether it does meet those requirements but we should take a look. This is especially true given the MS/IBM/HP/Intel WS white paper, which has WS- Enumeration in at the bottom layer.

Another question I've had raised to me is whether we can use WSRF/WSRT to handle the properties associated with entries in the directory. I personally don't see how this would work, but given the context we're working in it would be helpful to establish what relationship exists, if any.

Best wishes,

Dave.

- ---------------------------------------------------- Chris Jordan HPC Systems Engineer High End Computing Systems Group San Diego Supercomputer Center ctjordan@sdsc.edu 858.534.8347 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFEOL5nPCVtcXn6kg8RAvUhAJoD9nu2O8c2sxUzDbFDkD0lrFziRQCeIqcX 8HpYq17rM4OSxlCXLV/VNFQ= =uKze -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----