Design Team I (OGSA session 4)
==============================

  June 8, 6:00-7:30pm
  Minutes: Andreas Savva
  
  (Attendance #20)

* Execution Management Services

   [Using "Typical Pattern" slide from EMS presentation as starting
   point for discussion.]

   - Looking at creating requirements for input to CDDLM-WG for
     deployment/configuration.
   - Need to start drilling down to refine interfaces, etc.
     - Proposed target: full description to allow people to implement
       - Did full description when focused on PE; need to revisit
         since the focus is extended to EMS. Take into account new use
         cases.
       - Would still like to get more concrete first to make sure that
         there is actual agreement on the big picture (and not just
         the illusion of agreement)
       - UML modelling as a possible first step
   - Go out to another WG for refinement or not?
     - Consensus is to keep it in OGSA-WG for now
   - Not just refinement but also clean up concepts across the
     capabilities. (OGSA as a whole)
   - What is the purpose of refinement? Validation not a normative
     spec.
     - Not worried that we might end up throwing it away if the
       concepts change in the meantime.
     - It was useful doing it for logging
     - There are concerns about how long this process will take
       however

   - Also need to revisit the use case scenarios to make sure that
     nothing is left out.
   - (Arrows: Show interactions but without going to any detail; not
     really detailed enough to be useful at this moment.)
     - Used 3 main use cases (see OGSA doc) but the "Typical Pattern"
       is actually Program Execution.
   - (Chris volunteered as liaison for SAGA-WG:
     - SAGA-RG will tackle job submission or management. What
       operations need to be done; it might be useful input to the EMS
       team.)

   - Next steps discussion:
     - Create WG or stay as design team. Does it make a difference at
       this moment?
     - There is danger in breaking off into another WG since the
       tighter interactions between the different teams may be lost.
     - But need more people involved. It can be easier if a different
       WG is formed as there will be more visibility. Also the rigor
       of having a WG is an advantage.
     - OGSA-WG has a full plate already; we have to prioritize this
       work against all the other work (Roadmap, Recommendation Track
       documents) and the members are the same.
     - Consensus is to do more work within design teams and not form
       new WG yet.
       - Don't dive too deep; do initial UML 
       - Begin to look at CIM/DMTF stuff as input 
          - (Roger Reich, Bill Horn, Tom Maguire as contacts)
       - And also interactions with other capabilities (e.g., Data)
     - Schedule the next batch of teleconfs

* Cross-WG session with Utility WG 

   - Profile: A set of interfaces and how they interoperate and order
              of operations.
            (And doing that in a broader context of multiple vendors
            etc)
   - Is CIM a standard produced through a process?
     - Initially donated by MS. It is now a consortium (so perhaps not
       an 'open open' standards organization.)
   - Standards slide talks mainly about interactions with GGF; there
     are other interactions (beyond Web services)
   - Are actual interfaces defined or just model/profiles?
   - Relation of OGSA and DMTF
     - OGSA taxonomy used by Utility-WG reference model
     - OGSA Management requirements to be fed in

   - CIM Manageable entity: models might be good input for OGSA and
     then might have to refine or add things to satisfy requirements.
     - Need to work out what information to exchange

   - If DMTF stops at models and OGSA starts at services then the
     interoperability is in the OGSA domain; otherwise there is
     overlap in efforts and it creates interroperability problems.
     - Might need to define some common set of base services
     - If OGSA defines provisioning or reservation interfaces they
       would also have to be modeled.
       - As an example, the 'managees' are in CIM but the managers
         will not be.
     - It is not clear that there are clear lines can be drawn

   - Assumption
     - Set collaboration as a target, and decide what to do.
     - How to synchronize:
       - Andrew would like to be involved in DMTF activites for EMS
     - Today was the first step
     - Next step: set up a 'tutorial' session: CIM model, examples
       - Might be good to do cim model + profile
       - E.g., execution, if possible, or storage
       - do both?
     - Email Tom Maguire or Jeffrin Von Reich if you want to join
       DMTF. Only people from organizations part of DMTF can join.
     - DMTF would probably like to know the OGSA Roadmap to understand
       what needs to be done and when.
       - See current DMTF roadmap as input
     - Need to draw clear lines to understand what OGSA models vs what
       the DMTF should do
       - Provide OGSA Roadmap as input to DMTF