Hi Steven, thanks for the comments. On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Steven Newhouse wrote:
Although this example is simplified, it illustrates the motivation for our work. The APIs specified by this RG will deliver a similar
The RG is not specifying APIs IMHO. Suggest you use, developed or identified instead.
Good point.
The group will lower the barrier for application developers to make use of the grid by providing a small, consistent API for the operations of interest, the Simple API for Grid Applications (SAGA).
I'd suggest cutting the previous paragraph. This is the role of the spawned WGs. The RG is the coordinating activity which comes across well elsewhere.
Ok, cut.
Change to: The design teams will
- solicit related application use cases - issue an informal use case document - issue and informal requirement document
Typo: - issue an informal requirement document
Question: Do you mean informal or informational? Several of the OGSA design teams have captured their work in informational documents. This may be a good idea?
I think we did mean an informal document here, but it might be good to make it an informational document.
* Informational Document: "SAGA compatability with other Grid specifications"
See my earlier comments - "SAGA use of other Grid specifications"
This document will survey the compatability of SAGA reference implementations with underlying models of grid-middleware including, but not confined to OGSA.
Ok, I've renamed this. Cheers, Tom