Hello John:
It's a good idea to have a UR 2.0 specification, but I won't recommend a separate storage usage record. In OGF 21, Donal and I came up with a long-term roadmap for UR 2.0 (as attached). How about come up with some storage metrics rather than another usage record template for storage. I will try to squeeze sometime for the UR core schema, which abstract common template for different types of usage records, computing, storage, service, etc.
PS: I've moved to university of Southampton (email: xc2@ecs.soton.ac.uk) and got a project deadline in May. But I will try my best to input something. I also asked for replacement of my chairship.
Best Regards!
X. Chen
--------
LSL
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton
SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom
+44 238 0591 523
-----Original Message-----
From: ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org on behalf of john.gordon@stfc.ac.uk
Sent: Tue 23/03/2010 15:42
To: andrea.cristofori@cnaf.infn.it; ur-wg@ogf.org
Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
Andrea, at OGF28 someone suggested that we had a choice of either
fitting the storage record into the existing UR or defining a new
standard. I do not think that this is the case. The existing UR
UsageRecord element has a UsageRecordType type of which JobUsageRecord
is a defined type. I think we need to define a new type
StorageUsageRecord which can contain some of the existing Global
attributes defined for the JobUsageRecord.
We could also define a FileUsageRecord to cover the case you were
defining Andrea.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf
Of
Andrea Cristofori
Sent: 23 March 2010 14:49
To: ur-wg@ogf.org
Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
Dear all,
While waiting for the minute I'll suggest we can already start to
discuss one basic topic that came up during the meeting before we move
to more specific things.
- Since the beginning I was thinking just to add new properties to the
existing UR definition. This would allow to choose those that are
needed
in each situation and reuse those that are common. In case of new
versions of the UR definition if we update a property then is not
needed
to update all the definition if this is common. Not all of us agreed
with that and it was proposed to create a different usage record for
the
Storage.
What do you think?
- What would you prefer to do in case we discuss other property not
directly connected with storage accounting? Should we include
everything
in the discussion now or concentrate only on this topic and try to
finalize an update before moving to other things?
Cheers
Andrea
On 03/18/2010 05:19 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
P.S.: here is the link
http://www.ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/?id=2029
On 03/18/2010 05:15 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
Dear all,
I have uploaded the slide I presented in Munich last Monday. As
soon
as
we check the minute of the discussion I will upload the file, we
can
continue the discussion and decide how to proceed.
Cheers
Andrea
On 03/10/2010 04:40 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
Dear all,
We have a session scheduled for Monday, March 15 from 4:00 pm to
5:30 pm
Location: HGB-A 016.
Agenda:
- UR for Storage Accounting discussion
- AUR discussion
- AOB
If you want to add or change something on the agenda please let me
know.
I'm plannig to prepare some slide to show to the people present
there
that can be a starting point for the discussion.
Cheers
Andrea
--
Andrea Cristofori
INFN-CNAF
Viale Berti Pichat 6/2
40127 Bologna
Italy
Tel. : +39-051-6092920
Skype: andrea-cnaf
--
ur-wg mailing list
ur-wg@ogf.org
http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg
--
ur-wg mailing list
ur-wg@ogf.org
http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg