I am afraid that I do not believe in current document and having done negligible work on it, you should remove me from section 7 with contributers. Here are some comments. First I would restate goal at start of section 2 as something like *The Open Grid Forum should commit all its available resources to the goal that before this decade is out, commercial and academic organizations will build real operational grids with OGF help. * We should try to be useful -- not to force people to use "our products" -- the purpose of interoperable frameworks is to enable people to choose the best of the best. I like the rest of section 2 and figure 1. I think however that section 3 describes a process that is very unlikely to succeed. In particular it seems to assume that all requirements are met either by OGF standards or an OGF WG producing a BKM. This is certainly not what happens today and inconsistent with current experience whether it be GIN or the equivalent of BKM's being produced around the world capturing state of the art in Grids. Sections 4 and 5 seem to be fine describing the standards work of OGF; this is important and useful but probably only part (possibly a modest part) of what it takes to build Grids. As noted by myself and Gannon http://grids.ucs.indiana.edu/ptliupages/publications/ReviewofServicesandWork... there is currently modest use of any (W3C OASIS OGF) standards in existing Grids and it will be a while before this changes. I think its unwise for OGF to put all its eggs in this basket! I note that at SC06, the eScience function discussed the Technical Strategy document and given clear need to produce something soon, suggested that OGF aim at a set of documents with current document focused (as it is) on standards function and supplement this with other documents more in tune with the eScience drummer! I could (given time) edit current document but as I think my philosophy is not in accord with other authors, that would not be useful! ** David Snelling wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Linesch, Mark" <mark.linesch@hp.com> Date: 2 January 2007 16:04:56 GMT To: "David Snelling" <David.Snelling@UK.Fujitsu.com>, "Joel Replogle" <replogle@ogf.org> Cc: <scrumb@ogf.org> Subject: FW: comments on OGF Technical Strategy document
David, Joel,
Comments on the TSC document from Greg Astfalk at HP. Mark
Mark Linesch: Open Grid Forum (OGF): Hewlett Packard 281-514-0322 (Tel): 281-414-7082 (Cell) mark.linesch@hp.com : linesch@ogf.org
-----Original Message----- From: Astfalk, Greg Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 7:24 AM To: Linesch, Mark; Walker, Martin Antony (HPTC); Vickers, Paul Subject: comments on OGF Technical Strategy document
FWIW, in no particular order, and ranging from mega- to minutia...
- Section 1.2 is missing a section numberin the third sentence
- Section 1.3: "distributed computing at Internet scale" is a poor summation. It will, for many people, eliminate the more practical and valuable intra-organization grids.
- Section 1.3, second paragraph implies that your focus is only on collections of supercomputers. I certainly hope that is <not> the case. Otherwise why did you merge with EGA, and why am I funding OGF?
- Section 2: the stated goal is laudable, very. However, I have angst over the use of "defined" (see more comments below). The clock is ticking and 3 years is a genuinely short time-frame to get through the process described later in the document. For me this imples that you need to speed-up since pushing the date out is the wrong thing to do.
- In some places in the document you use the construct "...text - text..." this should always be "...text<em-dashh>text...". That is, use the em-dash character (Word has it) with no spaces on either side. There are some places where you did this.
- The bullet list in section 2 does not have the requisite emphasis on "product". OGF needs to be known for more than jsut paper specs. How do reference implementations evolve to "product"?
- Figure 1: I assume that the union of use cases will provide the gaps? This should be almost known already, especially including the commercial space. This gors back to my point above that 2010 is an aggressive goal.
- OGF has a lot of WGs, some more important and relevant than others. Is there a possiblity of re-factoring the human capital toward meeting the core set of WGs needed to meet your 2010 goal? I am aware that this is volunteer stuff.
- Section 4.3: Would this be more accurate titled if it were "Data Movement"
- Section 4.3: Change "...from this from this..." to "...from this..."
- Section 4.6: You need to add auditing to the required list, i.e., all three components of the so-called AAA (aka triple-A) are necessary.
- Section 4.6.1" Tyhw work of Wenbo Mao in HPL-Beijing is, IMO, especially useful here. It does, however, require the presence of TPMs.
- Section 5 in the sub-bullet list: You list "Product" and that it is supported. By who? This goes back to my point on the word "defined" in your goal statement. Organizations will not be able or ready to build operational grids without functioning code. It is axiomatic to me that if only paper specs exist then your goal will not be realizable. It is also nearly so that you can not develop "product" by then. To have "support" by 2010 is, IMO, impossible. Is this a solvable conundrum?
- Section 5: Change "Table 1 is not a complete list of OGF activity nor..." to "Table 1 is neither a complete list of OGF activity nor...". You know, the ususal neither/nor, either/or thing...
- Section 6: A really, really good mandate. Change "All OGF document must..." to "All OGF documents must...".
-- : : Geoffrey Fox gcf@indiana.edu FAX 8128567972 http://www.infomall.org : Phones Cell 812-219-4643 Home 8123239196 Lab 8128567977 : SkypeIn 812-669-0772 with voicemail, International cell 8123910207