Next job management teleconference tomorrow, wednesday may 6th
Dear all, the next PGI teleconference will be held tomorrow, wednesday may 5th at 16:00 CET (duration: 1 hour). Call-in details as follow: via Skype call +9900827049931906 (free of charge) ordinary phone numbers (local rates) with the 9931906 conference number: Austria 0820 401 15470 Belgium 0703 57 134 France 0826 109 071 Germany +49 (0) 180 500 9527 Switzerland 0848 560 397 Agenda (please feel free to suggest additional items): 1) Whether http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/doc15615?nav=1 contains information which should be included in the requirements documents, as suggested by Etienne; 2) Any final issues with the requirements document, especially with the state model as discussed last time; hopefully this item will be discussed very quickly; 3) How the requirements can be mapped into an actual implementation Moreno. -- Moreno Marzolla INFN Sezione di Padova, via Marzolo 8, 35131 PADOVA, Italy EMail: moreno.marzolla@pd.infn.it Phone: +39 049 8277103 WWW : http://www.dsi.unive.it/~marzolla Fax : +39 049 8756233
Moreno Marzolla wrote:
the next PGI teleconference will be held tomorrow, wednesday may 5th at 16:00 CET (duration: 1 hour).
Well, of course tomorrow is may 6th (as in the subject), not 5th. Sorry for the noise. Moreno.
Moreno and All, Concerning the next PGI Execution Service teleconference held today, Wednesday 06 May 2009 at 16h CEST : New title of the GES document ----------------------------- I propose 'PGI Execution Service'. States and Transitions Model ---------------------------- A software service can easily publish the list of its states and the authorized transitions between states. A software client can easily read them. But beyond the syntax, the transitions contain SEMANTICS : - Human software engineers can describe (with some work and review) these semantics for understanding by human software engineers, - But I am afraid that it is very difficult to describe these semantics for understanding by a computer software. Therefore, I am afraid that a software client can NOT guess how to adequately USE the listed authorized transitions. So, I advise that we agree on the largest possible list of states and transitions, with the semantics of their transitions. - That will define PGI-compliance. - Any further refinement of states will be accepted ONLY for logging purposes, but any further transition will be completely optional and NOT supported by PGI. Please study this issue, make your own mind, and express your position. Best regards. ----------------------------------------------------- Etienne URBAH LAL, Univ Paris-Sud, IN2P3/CNRS Bat 200 91898 ORSAY France Tel: +33 1 64 46 84 87 Skype: etienne.urbah Mob: +33 6 22 30 53 27 mailto:urbah@lal.in2p3.fr ----------------------------------------------------- On Tue, 05 May 2009, Moreno Marzolla wrote:
Dear all,
the next PGI teleconference will be held tomorrow, wednesday may 6th at 16:00 CET (duration: 1 hour).
Call-in details as follow: via Skype call +9900827049931906 (free of charge) ordinary phone numbers (local rates) with the 9931906 conference number:
Austria 0820 401 15470 Belgium 0703 57 134 France 0826 109 071 Germany +49 (0) 180 500 9527 Switzerland 0848 560 397
Agenda (please feel free to suggest additional items):
1) Whether http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/doc15615?nav=1 contains information which should be included in the requirements documents, as suggested by Etienne;
2) Any final issues with the requirements document, especially with the state model as discussed last time; hopefully this item will be discussed very quickly;
3) How the requirements can be mapped into an actual implementation
Moreno.
All, I propose that we not call it PGI Execution Service - that implies that we are defining a specification, whereas I believe we can do this with a profile and requests to change one or perhaps two other specifications (BES).
So, I advise that we agree on the largest possible list of states and transitions, with the semantics of their transitions. - That will define PGI-compliance. - Any further refinement of states will be accepted ONLY for logging purposes, but any further transition will be completely optional and NOT supported by PGI.
Agreed - we profile state extensions.
A software service can easily publish the list of its states and the authorized transitions between states. A software client can easily read them.
We won't need to do this if we profile the ones we want explicitly supported and the service makes a conformance (to the profile) claim. Also with respect to (w.r.t.) the logging bit. What a service does internally with sub-states is its business. If it wants to use knowledge of them somehow that seems fine to me. A
-----Original Message----- From: pgi-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:pgi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Etienne URBAH Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 7:01 AM To: moreno.marzolla@pd.infn.it; pgi-wg@ogf.org Cc: edges-na3@mail.edges-grid.eu; lodygens@lal.in2p3.fr Subject: Re: [Pgi-wg] PGI Execution Service teleconference today Wednesday 06 May 2009 at 16h CEST
Moreno and All,
Concerning the next PGI Execution Service teleconference held today, Wednesday 06 May 2009 at 16h CEST :
New title of the GES document ----------------------------- I propose 'PGI Execution Service'.
States and Transitions Model ---------------------------- A software service can easily publish the list of its states and the authorized transitions between states. A software client can easily read them.
But beyond the syntax, the transitions contain SEMANTICS : - Human software engineers can describe (with some work and review) these semantics for understanding by human software engineers, - But I am afraid that it is very difficult to describe these semantics for understanding by a computer software. Therefore, I am afraid that a software client can NOT guess how to adequately USE the listed authorized transitions.
So, I advise that we agree on the largest possible list of states and transitions, with the semantics of their transitions. - That will define PGI-compliance. - Any further refinement of states will be accepted ONLY for logging purposes, but any further transition will be completely optional and NOT supported by PGI.
Please study this issue, make your own mind, and express your position.
Best regards.
----------------------------------------------------- Etienne URBAH LAL, Univ Paris-Sud, IN2P3/CNRS Bat 200 91898 ORSAY France Tel: +33 1 64 46 84 87 Skype: etienne.urbah Mob: +33 6 22 30 53 27 mailto:urbah@lal.in2p3.fr -----------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 05 May 2009, Moreno Marzolla wrote:
Dear all,
the next PGI teleconference will be held tomorrow, wednesday may 6th at 16:00 CET (duration: 1 hour).
Call-in details as follow: via Skype call +9900827049931906 (free of charge) ordinary phone numbers (local rates) with the 9931906 conference number:
Austria 0820 401 15470 Belgium 0703 57 134 France 0826 109 071 Germany +49 (0) 180 500 9527 Switzerland 0848 560 397
Agenda (please feel free to suggest additional items):
1) Whether http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/doc15615?nav=1 contains information which should be included in the requirements documents, as suggested by Etienne;
2) Any final issues with the requirements document, especially with the state model as discussed last time; hopefully this item will be discussed very quickly;
3) How the requirements can be mapped into an actual implementation
Moreno.
Hi Etienne,
New title of the GES document ----------------------------- I propose 'PGI Execution Service'. I would be very nervous about, it would possibly give out the wrong impression, we are profiling, not totally new specs.
States and Transitions Model ---------------------------- A software service can easily publish the list of its states and the authorized transitions between states. A software client can easily read them.
But beyond the syntax, the transitions contain SEMANTICS : - Human software engineers can describe (with some work and review) these semantics for understanding by human software engineers, - But I am afraid that it is very difficult to describe these semantics for understanding by a computer software. Therefore, I am afraid that a software client can NOT guess how to adequately USE the listed authorized transitions.
So, I advise that we agree on the largest possible list of states and transitions, with the semantics of their transitions. - That will define PGI-compliance. - Any further refinement of states will be accepted ONLY for logging purposes, but any further transition will be completely optional and NOT supported by PGI.
Agreed. David
Please study this issue, make your own mind, and express your position.
Best regards.
----------------------------------------------------- Etienne URBAH LAL, Univ Paris-Sud, IN2P3/CNRS Bat 200 91898 ORSAY France Tel: +33 1 64 46 84 87 Skype: etienne.urbah Mob: +33 6 22 30 53 27 mailto:urbah@lal.in2p3.fr -----------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 05 May 2009, Moreno Marzolla wrote:
Dear all,
the next PGI teleconference will be held tomorrow, wednesday may 6th at 16:00 CET (duration: 1 hour).
Call-in details as follow: via Skype call +9900827049931906 (free of charge) ordinary phone numbers (local rates) with the 9931906 conference number:
Austria 0820 401 15470 Belgium 0703 57 134 France 0826 109 071 Germany +49 (0) 180 500 9527 Switzerland 0848 560 397
Agenda (please feel free to suggest additional items):
1) Whether http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/doc15615?nav=1 contains information which should be included in the requirements documents, as suggested by Etienne;
2) Any final issues with the requirements document, especially with the state model as discussed last time; hopefully this item will be discussed very quickly;
3) How the requirements can be mapped into an actual implementation
Moreno.
_______________________________________________ Pgi-wg mailing list Pgi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg
All, It is finals week here, and I have a student exit interview at 10 my time (that's when the call begins). Assuming he shows up it will take me 10-12 minutes to finish him up. A
-----Original Message----- From: pgi-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:pgi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of David Wallom Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:15 AM To: Etienne URBAH; moreno.marzolla@pd.infn.it; pgi-wg@ogf.org Cc: edges-na3@mail.edges-grid.eu; lodygens@lal.in2p3.fr Subject: Re: [Pgi-wg] PGI Execution Service teleconference today Wednesday 06 May 2009 at 16h CEST
Hi Etienne,
New title of the GES document ----------------------------- I propose 'PGI Execution Service'. I would be very nervous about, it would possibly give out the wrong impression, we are profiling, not totally new specs.
States and Transitions Model ---------------------------- A software service can easily publish the list of its states and the authorized transitions between states. A software client can easily read them.
But beyond the syntax, the transitions contain SEMANTICS : - Human software engineers can describe (with some work and review) these semantics for understanding by human software engineers, - But I am afraid that it is very difficult to describe these semantics for understanding by a computer software. Therefore, I am afraid that a software client can NOT guess how to adequately USE the listed authorized transitions.
So, I advise that we agree on the largest possible list of states and transitions, with the semantics of their transitions. - That will define PGI-compliance. - Any further refinement of states will be accepted ONLY for logging purposes, but any further transition will be completely optional and NOT supported by PGI.
Agreed.
David
Please study this issue, make your own mind, and express your position.
Best regards.
----------------------------------------------------- Etienne URBAH LAL, Univ Paris-Sud, IN2P3/CNRS Bat 200 91898 ORSAY France Tel: +33 1 64 46 84 87 Skype: etienne.urbah Mob: +33 6 22 30 53 27 mailto:urbah@lal.in2p3.fr -----------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 05 May 2009, Moreno Marzolla wrote:
Dear all,
the next PGI teleconference will be held tomorrow, wednesday may 6th at 16:00 CET (duration: 1 hour).
Call-in details as follow: via Skype call +9900827049931906 (free of charge) ordinary phone
numbers
(local rates) with the 9931906 conference number:
Austria 0820 401 15470 Belgium 0703 57 134 France 0826 109 071 Germany +49 (0) 180 500 9527 Switzerland 0848 560 397
Agenda (please feel free to suggest additional items):
1) Whether http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/doc15615?nav=1 contains information which should be included in the requirements documents, as suggested by Etienne;
2) Any final issues with the requirements document, especially with the state model as discussed last time; hopefully this item will be discussed very quickly;
3) How the requirements can be mapped into an actual implementation
Moreno.
_______________________________________________ Pgi-wg mailing list Pgi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg
_______________________________________________ Pgi-wg mailing list Pgi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg
-----Original Message----- From: pgi-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:pgi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of David Wallom Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:15 AM To: Etienne URBAH; moreno.marzolla@pd.infn.it; pgi-wg@ogf.org Cc: edges-na3@mail.edges-grid.eu; lodygens@lal.in2p3.fr Subject: Re: [Pgi-wg] PGI Execution Service teleconference today Wednesday 06 May 2009 at 16h CEST
Hi Etienne,
New title of the GES document ----------------------------- I propose 'PGI Execution Service'. I would be very nervous about, it would possibly give out the wrong impression, we are profiling, not totally new specs.
[I'm receiving this through Andrew's reply as I did not get the original message from David...] Actually nobody decided yet that we are going to profile existing specs rather than write a brand new one. Both are equally likely possibilities until we get an agreement. Personally, I'm for developing new specification(s), hopefully taking from the existing ones; but of course that's just my personal viewpoint. Moreno. -- Moreno Marzolla INFN Sezione di Padova, via Marzolo 8, 35131 PADOVA, Italy EMail: moreno.marzolla@pd.infn.it Phone: +39 049 8277103 WWW : http://www.dsi.unive.it/~marzolla Fax : +39 049 8756233
participants (4)
-
Andrew Grimshaw -
David Wallom -
Etienne URBAH -
Moreno Marzolla