I've made some changes for typos inline... with a few other comments for consideration. Steven
The Charter
Informational Section ---------------------
Area: Applications [Standards]
Name of group: Simple API for Grid Applications
Acronym: SAGA RG
Type of group: Reasearch Group (RG)
Chairs: Tom Goodale, Shantenu Jha, Thilo Kielmann
Secretaries: TBD
Email list: saga-rg@ggf.org
Web page: http://forge.ggf.org/projects/saga-rg/
Charter: -------
This charter is the result of a re-chartering of the SAGA Research Group.
Focus/Purpose: -------------
Many application developers wish to make use of the exciting possibilities opened up by the advent of the Grid. Application developers, however, have their own agendas to pursue and often cannot spare the time or resources to fully investigate the vast wealth of Grid technologies and APIs which currently exist. They would rather be presented with a simple API close to the programming paradigms and interfaces they are used to.
For example, the process of copying of a remote file may involve interaction with a replica location service, a data transport service, a resource management service, and a security service. It may involve communication via LDAP/LDIF, GRAM, HTTP, and GSI, as protocols or protocol extensions. A Fortran application programmer, however, wants to see a call very much like:
call fileCopy (source, destination)
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.
level of abstraction for a range of basic operations which need to be grid aware. The precise set of operations is to be decided by the RG based upon application requirements and use cases; examples of such operations may be file access, job submission, monitoring or steering.
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.
Scope: -----
The group will build on the results and feedback of the work of the former SAGA RG. As such, it will provide a forum in GGF to consolidate application driven API specifications. The primary goals of the group are two fold:
1) provide general guidlines for application driven API specifications in GGF (security guidlines, common look & feel, interoperability guidlines, conflict resolution, etc.)
2) The group will form, on an ad hoc basis, design teams which investigate new API areas for inclusion in the SAGA-API The design teams are supposed to
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?
3) Spawn off focused working groups which will work on API specifications (standard recommendation track) for specific subsystems, e.g. RPC, CPR, application steering etc, after a design team has identified and explored an area as described in (2) above.
4) Coordinate the activities of the SAGA working groups and make sure that the resulting APIs are in line with the SAGA goals.
The SAGA API does not strive to replace globus or
globus -> Globus
similar middlerware systems, and does not target middlware
middlerware -> middleware
developers, but solely application developers with no assumed background on Grid Computing who wish to grid enable their applications whilst spending as little time as possible learning new paradigms. Such developers typically wish to devote their time to their own goals and minimise the time spent coding infrastructure functionality. The API will insulate application developers from middleware.
Commas in the following sentence.
The specification of services, and the protocols to interact with them, is out of the scope of the WG. Rather, the API seeks to hide the detail of any service infrastructures that may or may not exist to implement the functionality that the application
exist -> be used
developer needs. The RG will, however, actively liase with all
all -> relevant
grid-middleware groups within the GGF to ensure compatability.
Is compatability the right word? You're not defining an implementation but the specifications being produced in GGF and elsewhere that you are going to build upon.
Exit Strategy: --------------
No clear exit strategy for this group exists, as it is supposed to provide means to continously spawn off focused working groups. However, the group does have a list of deliverables, and should revisit its charter after these deliverables have been completed.
Goals: ------
Note: As this charter is a result of a re-chartering process for the SAGA RG, it also contains goals and deliverables which already have been delivered, or are currently in the process of beeing
beeing -> being
deliverd.
The group will produce an informal use case document ("SAGA Use-Case Document") and a informal requirement document ("SAGA Requirements Document").
In continuation, and broadening its scope, the group will create a Community Practice Document "SAGA API Guidlines", which will define the Look & Feel of SAGA APIs, and describe central paradigms (such as asynchroneous operations and error handling) which should be respected in SAGA API specifications. That document will build upon the experience of the SAGA-CORE WG and their initial SAGA API specification v1.0.
These documents are to guide the spawned off working groups, and to ensure short and concise working agendas for these groups. The formation of design teams is informell, and should
informell -> informal
always strive to find members from the specific areas of expertese - i.e. members from the relevant GGF community groups,
expertese -> expertise
and members from the relevant GGF standards groups.
* Informational Document: "SAGA Use Case Document" - use cases
* Informational Document: "SAGA Requirements document" - define exact scope of the initial SAGA API - define target user groups for initial SAGA API - define programming languages to be supported by the initial SAGA API
* 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.
* Community Practice Document: "SAGA API Guidlines" This document will define the Look & Feel of SAGA APIs, and describe central paradigms (such as asynchroneous operations and error handling) which should be respected in SAGA API specifications.
Milestones: -----------
GGF16: - Finalization of "SAGA Use Case Document, version 1" - Presentation of "SAGA Requirements document, version 1"
GGF17: - Finalization of "SAGA Requirements document, version 1"
GGF19: - Presentation of "SAGA compatibility with other Grid specifications, version 1"
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Steven Newhouse Tel:+44 (0)2380 598789 Director, Open Middleware Infrastructure Institute-UK (OMII-UK) c/o Suite 6005, Faraday Building (B21), Highfield Campus, Southampton University, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK