GGF13 OGSA-WG session #1 - Outreach
===================================

* "OGSA status and future" presentation

  - Hiro's presentation on OGSA-WG activities
  <URL>
    - Current status, sessions planned for GGF13 (including BoFs:
      Data: ByteIO, EM:BES) and review of architecture.

  - Q&A
    - Architecture Status (slide 18): In gaps in standards it is not
      clear what the difference is between privacy and security

      Privacy refers to protecting information relating to
      individuals. The issues have not been discused in detail
      with the working group.

      Security refers to protecting communications between entities.

    - Meaning of "information service"

      Refers to directories, producer/consumer pattern of
      information exchange, notification and so on. 

    - Why is Naming under the information category? It is more basic
      than that.

      Naming is more fundamental and is somewhat misplaced in the
      specification at the moment.

    - Does the proposed model of naming work for everything or is it
      just for services

      There is a multi-level (3-level) approach. The group is now
      focusing on bottom 2 layers that are deal with abstract
      names and address mapping). There will be a BoF on this
      during this GGF. The top level allows for any human-oriented
      scheme to be represented but it is not the focus of work at
      this moment. 

      [This did not answer the question but further discussion was
      defered for the Naming BoF.]

* "What is a Profile" presentation

  - Dave Snelling's presentation explaining the profile approach that
    OGSA-WG is taking
    <URL> 

  - OGSA version 1.0 describes the capabilities required but the
    description is too abstract. It is not possible to implement it
    and have interoperability between different OGSA based systems.
    The problem is therefore how to provide normative descriptions
    (at least parts) of OGSA.
  - Profiles provide such a concrete implementation target. By
    necessity the profiles cover only parts of the OGSA version 1.0. 
  - Profiles are based on existing specifications. Given that not all
    the specifications needed are in a complete and stable state there
    are two types of profiles: recommendation profiles and candidate
    profiles. The difference is that candidate profiles may be based
    on specifications that are not complete or stable.

  - Q&A
    - The definition of stable specification and the example given
      (WSRF) do not match. WSRF, WSN and WS-Addressing which they use,
      are not finished yet and will change, even if only to change the
      schema namespaces.  WSN and WSRF even use different versions of
      WS-Addressing.

      These specifications are close to submission and the
      expectation is that they will reach that level soon; at least
      by the time the Basic Profile (BP) is done. The inconsistency
      issue is known and is being pursued in the relevant TCs.

      Other specs can be included; that only means that the profile
      will take longer before submission as recommendation profile.
   
    - The profile definition allows for only partial
      implementations. Why is that allowed and does it not hurt
      interoperability? (Partial compliance makes it difficult to tell
      whether two different deployments can actually interoperate.)

      It is preferred that if compliance is claimed it is claimed
      against the whole profile. It is true that partial compliance
      creates more problems. But some people may not have need for
      some parts the profile.

    - Such problems are usually solved by a core and extensions
      approach; the core is mandatory.
      
      This is a roughly the approach taken with the profiles: the base
      profile covers functionality that is expected to be common to
      all (or almost all) systems; additional profiles to cover extra
      functionality.

    - OGSA base profile and WS-I BP difference

      The OGSA BP adopts and builds on top of the WS-I BP. It extents
      it with features that deal with application layer issues. In
      brief it adds WSRF (and WS-Addressing)

* Data architecture 

  - Dave Berry's description of the work on defining a Data
    architecture. 
    <URL>

    A ByteIO BoF is scheduled for this GGF and is intended as part of
    an emerging Data Profile that will complement the Basic profile
    and the EM profile.
    
    Volunteers to work on the Data profile are needed and in
    particular a Data profile champion.