Minutes of the 4-May-2004 CGS-WG Telecon

Attendees:
	Larry Flon, USC/ISI
	Viktor Mihailovski, IBM/Germany
	Brian Collins, IBM/UK

The first problem noted was that the conference call logistics were broken.  Once these three people were connected, no one else could connect.  We are tracking down this problem and will have it fixed for the next call.

We began by reviewing the first draft UML model for a logical database schema.  This model can be found on GridForge at 

https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/cgs-wg/document/SRIM_UML_Current_Draft/en/1

The following questions arose:

o Should we represent both Tables and Views?

    The answer appears to be Yes, as they both are relevant to the use cases.

o In the case of NamedColumnSet and QueryCOlumnSet, should the distinction be maintained?

    There does not appear to be a reason to maintain this distinction. The suggestion is to drop these two classes, and give the class ColumnSet a name attribute.

o What about the classes to represent DataType?

    This is an open issue.  We are not sure at what level we should define data type.  It is a Pandora's box if we don't take a simplistic approach, at least initially.

In general, we felt that prioritization of the Use Case document is really needed.  We can probably develop a logical database model that will support Discovery, in short order.  But if we need to support Administration, then the model is going to be much more complex.  Perhaps we should consider focusing on Discovery for now?

We will continue this discussion on the mailing list.  There will be another telecon next Tuesday, May 11.