Re: [Pgi-wg] Gridiron, or standardization gone backwards
Hello Oxana, Though I agree in the most parts with your analogy this does seem to be in one way or another the technologists again not getting what the user community want. Take for example Structural Biologists, they are collaborating across continental Europe, UK and US by at the moment having themselves to devise the translators/metalayers necessary to bridge across different infrastructures. We need to move beyond the 'my technical solution is better than yours' and realise that if we are not careful the user communities will just see that we are infighting and go their own way (or tell our funders that we are inefficient and not worth continuing). We must move towards standards and 'give' a little on all sides. The research community in the UK sees US collaboration as increasingly important with small amounts of EU collaboration because of funding. If we are not careful they will go their own way totally and we will not get them back. To go back to your analogy, If the user community wants to play gridiron you can shout until you are blue in the face about soccer but they will ignore you, it isn't suitable for them. David On 18/07/2010 01:39, "Oxana Smirnova" <oxana.smirnova@hep.lu.se> wrote:
Hi all,
I intended to comment on use cases, but feel like commenting on the very fact of their appearance.
When the PGI founders first met in September 2008 (yes, 2008), they produced a very advanced draft, almost a ready-made specification. The only reason they could not call it a specification was that they were nobody - that is, OGF did not know of them.
They didn't have to waste time on formalizing use cases and requirements, because all these were in their heads.
In football terms, they played by similar rules, and didn't have to explain to each other the gory details. They were driven by the desire to produce common rules of the game for themselves, such that they can play in the same league.
Then OGF kindly adopted the team, but at the cost of putting forward formal requirements. No forward movement happened since. First step backwards was to trim the specs to a "strawman". Second step backwards was to drop the strawman and collect requirements. The third step backwards was to go back to use cases. I dread to think what will be the next PGI decision? To create itself?
In September 2008 we thought that by December same year we'll have the core specs. Two years later we are discussing what is the best template for use cases and which teleconferencing tool to use. This is, well, unbelievable.
And Ithink I know the reason. We try to compare incomparable things.
Imagine an international football federation that brings together association football, American football, rugby, Australian rules football and all such things. And imagine this federation introducing common rules. What would this rule be? Right, "the game is played on a large field by two teams". Is there any practical use of this rule? No, every league will have to keep own "extensions".
Despite often looking brain-damaged, footballers are clever enough not to invent common football rules. They realize that the term is overloaded, and they manage to disambiguate it.
Grids brought together by PGI are as different as gridiron is different from soccer. Let's face it. They still can be played on the same pitch - meaning, they can use same hardware - but attempts to device common rules/specifications so far lead nowhere. It is as if gridiron guys would be keeping insisting that soccer has to be played with a ball that doesn't even look like a ball, and rugby folks would be agreeing, and soccer guys would be scratching their heads and meekly saying that their use case is actually to kick it with feet, not carry in armpits.
The analogy is probably not exactly accurate, but I am quite frustrated, as I can see no progress whatsoever. Of the original PGI "creators" only three are still attending the meetings - Johannes, Aleksandr and myself.
Any suggestions are welcomed.
Cheers, Oxana _______________________________________________ Pgi-wg mailing list Pgi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg
-- =================================== Dr David Wallom Technical Manager Oxford e-Research Centre University of Oxford Rm 160, 7 Keble Road Oxford OX1 3QG +44(0)1865 610601 ===================================
Hi David, you actually bring me back to my first post about use cases, which said: *** use cases must be provided by users I still stand by it. Indeed, if we have a community that plays gridiron, they'll never agree to twist the existing rules in order to make it looking a bit like soccer. Yet, we are trying to do exactly this. I never claim that one technological solution is better than another, just like I never will dare to claim that soccer is better than gridiron :-) What I say, is that they are *different*. If anybody has a use case where these different systems must be brought together, I'd like to have *this* use case, described in details, what exactly is needed, what exactly has to be unified and standardised. Cheers, Oxana On 20.07.2010 11:52, David Wallom wrote:
Hello Oxana,
Though I agree in the most parts with your analogy this does seem to be in one way or another the technologists again not getting what the user community want. Take for example Structural Biologists, they are collaborating across continental Europe, UK and US by at the moment having themselves to devise the translators/metalayers necessary to bridge across different infrastructures.
We need to move beyond the 'my technical solution is better than yours' and realise that if we are not careful the user communities will just see that we are infighting and go their own way (or tell our funders that we are inefficient and not worth continuing). We must move towards standards and 'give' a little on all sides.
The research community in the UK sees US collaboration as increasingly important with small amounts of EU collaboration because of funding. If we are not careful they will go their own way totally and we will not get them back. To go back to your analogy, If the user community wants to play gridiron you can shout until you are blue in the face about soccer but they will ignore you, it isn't suitable for them.
David
On 18/07/2010 01:39, "Oxana Smirnova"<oxana.smirnova@hep.lu.se> wrote:
Hi all,
I intended to comment on use cases, but feel like commenting on the very fact of their appearance.
When the PGI founders first met in September 2008 (yes, 2008), they produced a very advanced draft, almost a ready-made specification. The only reason they could not call it a specification was that they were nobody - that is, OGF did not know of them.
They didn't have to waste time on formalizing use cases and requirements, because all these were in their heads.
In football terms, they played by similar rules, and didn't have to explain to each other the gory details. They were driven by the desire to produce common rules of the game for themselves, such that they can play in the same league.
Then OGF kindly adopted the team, but at the cost of putting forward formal requirements. No forward movement happened since. First step backwards was to trim the specs to a "strawman". Second step backwards was to drop the strawman and collect requirements. The third step backwards was to go back to use cases. I dread to think what will be the next PGI decision? To create itself?
In September 2008 we thought that by December same year we'll have the core specs. Two years later we are discussing what is the best template for use cases and which teleconferencing tool to use. This is, well, unbelievable.
And Ithink I know the reason. We try to compare incomparable things.
Imagine an international football federation that brings together association football, American football, rugby, Australian rules football and all such things. And imagine this federation introducing common rules. What would this rule be? Right, "the game is played on a large field by two teams". Is there any practical use of this rule? No, every league will have to keep own "extensions".
Despite often looking brain-damaged, footballers are clever enough not to invent common football rules. They realize that the term is overloaded, and they manage to disambiguate it.
Grids brought together by PGI are as different as gridiron is different from soccer. Let's face it. They still can be played on the same pitch - meaning, they can use same hardware - but attempts to device common rules/specifications so far lead nowhere. It is as if gridiron guys would be keeping insisting that soccer has to be played with a ball that doesn't even look like a ball, and rugby folks would be agreeing, and soccer guys would be scratching their heads and meekly saying that their use case is actually to kick it with feet, not carry in armpits.
The analogy is probably not exactly accurate, but I am quite frustrated, as I can see no progress whatsoever. Of the original PGI "creators" only three are still attending the meetings - Johannes, Aleksandr and myself.
Any suggestions are welcomed.
Cheers, Oxana _______________________________________________ Pgi-wg mailing list Pgi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg
Morris, Johannes, Oxana, Steven, David and all, Concerning Use Cases for OGF PGI : Lot of thanks to Oxana for raising fundamental issues and asking good questions ! Yesterday, I wrote :
our problem is NOT 'computing', but 'providing middleware for a distributed infrastructure managed locally by separate administrative domains and authorizing users to submit activities on remote resources'.
Who are able to understand this problem, and write down relevant Use Cases ? - Surely the members of the teams having designed and now operating WLCG, - Perhaps the members of OGF PGI-WG, if we accept professional Software Engineering.
Steven NEWHOUSE answered with EGI itself :
EGI. Different NGIs wish to deploy different software and for their user communities to be able to access resources in different NGIs without worrying the software stack that is being run on the remote resources.
This applies as much within Europe as between Europe and the USA and elsewhere in the world.
Thinking more about it, I now propose other professionals who have the best skills and experience to write down 'Use Cases where different systems must be brought together' : - Providers of Scientific Grid Portals GridSphere, PGRADE, GEMLCA, ... - Providers of Workflow Engines : Kepler, Taverna, Triana, P-GRADE, ... Therefore, I suggest that OGF PGI : - Works in order to achieve internal agreement on the 'Use Case Template', for example http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc16024?nav=1 - Establishes contact with the above described providers, - Present them the agreed OGF PGI 'Use Case template', - Ask them to provide 'Use Cases where different systems must be brought together', preferably using the template. 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, 20/07/2010 14:43, Oxana Smirnova wrote:
Hi David,
you actually bring me back to my first post about use cases, which said:
*** use cases must be provided by users
I still stand by it. Indeed, if we have a community that plays gridiron, they'll never agree to twist the existing rules in order to make it looking a bit like soccer. Yet, we are trying to do exactly this.
I never claim that one technological solution is better than another, just like I never will dare to claim that soccer is better than gridiron :-) What I say, is that they are *different*.
If anybody has a use case where these different systems must be brought together, I'd like to have *this* use case, described in details, what exactly is needed, what exactly has to be unified and standardised.
Cheers, Oxana
On 20.07.2010 11:52, David Wallom wrote:
Hello Oxana,
Though I agree in the most parts with your analogy this does seem to be in one way or another the technologists again not getting what the user community want. Take for example Structural Biologists, they are collaborating across continental Europe, UK and US by at the moment having themselves to devise the translators/metalayers necessary to bridge across different infrastructures.
We need to move beyond the 'my technical solution is better than yours' and realise that if we are not careful the user communities will just see that we are infighting and go their own way (or tell our funders that we are inefficient and not worth continuing). We must move towards standards and 'give' a little on all sides.
The research community in the UK sees US collaboration as increasingly important with small amounts of EU collaboration because of funding. If we are not careful they will go their own way totally and we will not get them back. To go back to your analogy, If the user community wants to play gridiron you can shout until you are blue in the face about soccer but they will ignore you, it isn't suitable for them.
David
On 18/07/2010 01:39, "Oxana Smirnova"<oxana.smirnova@hep.lu.se> wrote:
Hi all,
I intended to comment on use cases, but feel like commenting on the very fact of their appearance.
When the PGI founders first met in September 2008 (yes, 2008), they produced a very advanced draft, almost a ready-made specification. The only reason they could not call it a specification was that they were nobody - that is, OGF did not know of them.
They didn't have to waste time on formalizing use cases and requirements, because all these were in their heads.
In football terms, they played by similar rules, and didn't have to explain to each other the gory details. They were driven by the desire to produce common rules of the game for themselves, such that they can play in the same league.
Then OGF kindly adopted the team, but at the cost of putting forward formal requirements. No forward movement happened since. First step backwards was to trim the specs to a "strawman". Second step backwards was to drop the strawman and collect requirements. The third step backwards was to go back to use cases. I dread to think what will be the next PGI decision? To create itself?
In September 2008 we thought that by December same year we'll have the core specs. Two years later we are discussing what is the best template for use cases and which teleconferencing tool to use. This is, well, unbelievable.
And Ithink I know the reason. We try to compare incomparable things.
Imagine an international football federation that brings together association football, American football, rugby, Australian rules football and all such things. And imagine this federation introducing common rules. What would this rule be? Right, "the game is played on a large field by two teams". Is there any practical use of this rule? No, every league will have to keep own "extensions".
Despite often looking brain-damaged, footballers are clever enough not to invent common football rules. They realize that the term is overloaded, and they manage to disambiguate it.
Grids brought together by PGI are as different as gridiron is different from soccer. Let's face it. They still can be played on the same pitch - meaning, they can use same hardware - but attempts to device common rules/specifications so far lead nowhere. It is as if gridiron guys would be keeping insisting that soccer has to be played with a ball that doesn't even look like a ball, and rugby folks would be agreeing, and soccer guys would be scratching their heads and meekly saying that their use case is actually to kick it with feet, not carry in armpits.
The analogy is probably not exactly accurate, but I am quite frustrated, as I can see no progress whatsoever. Of the original PGI "creators" only three are still attending the meetings - Johannes, Aleksandr and myself.
Any suggestions are welcomed.
Cheers, Oxana
participants (3)
-
David Wallom -
Etienne URBAH -
Oxana Smirnova