OGSA Teleconference - 14 July 2004
==================================

* Participants

  Bill Horn (IBM)
  Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu)
  Fred Maciel (Hitachi)
  Andreas Savva (Fujitsu)
  Frank Siebenlist (ANL)
  Latha Srinivasan (HP)
  Jem Treadwell (HP)
  Jeffrin Von Reich (HP)

  Minutes: Andreas Savva
 
* Resource Model discussion

  Discussed the applicability of CIM to OGSA. A number of questions or
  doubts were raised:
  - Does CIM have sufficient meta-capabilities? 
    - It does include a meta-model.
  - It was suggested that it is easier to handle multiple models
    rather than multiple renderings.(?)
  - Is this the only way to achieve interoperability? Is it possible
    to avoid choosing a specific model and do mappings at a higher
    level instead?
  - How well adopted is CIM?
    - There is some adoption on the systems side but not so much on
      the network side. And very little on the applications side.
  - (Jeffrin) seems more interested in mapping between models rather
    than assuming there is a single model.
    - Looking at relationships and being model-agnostic seems to be
      what WSDM is doing.


  A first candidate within OGSA to use CIM is EMS. But Fred is worried
  that we are talking about EMS as an example for resource modeling
  when there are no EMS people on this call.
  - Also it is not clear that OGSA has progressed enough to the
    point of being able to feed in requirements to CIM
  - CIM is complex and it is not always clear how or where to extend
    the model


  - Next step: Hiro to try to get more EMS people to join the next
    call
  - EMS Container & Job as two initial modeling topics

* Use case document public comments review

  - Process discussion: Discuss within group first, reach consensus
    and then post replies to public comment tracker

  1. "Service utilization"
    - 'platform service': This is no longer consistent with the
      current OGSA document. Perhaps the term should be changed; but
      in any case it does not sound like a major problem.
    - Perhaps add some explanation on what the template should be
      describing.

    Action: Relevant people (OGSA-WG) should review document and
            come up with a proposal on how to handle this issue.

  2. "Advance" vs "Advanced" reservation

     Discussed whether 'advanced' actually means something else (e.g.,
     complex reservation)
     
     Action: Jeffrin will review document and kick off discussion on
             whether the two terms mean different things.

    2-1. Disagree with suggestion to list requirements for general
         workflow engines

    2-2. Time to process reservation: Hiro agreed that wording is not
         very good and should be changed.  Action: Jeffrin to edit and
         Hiro to check

  3. Agreed to change 'enterpise' to 'organization' though there
     should not be a problem either way.

  4. This is a term defined by this use case. No extra explanation is
     needed.

  5. Abstract: Agreed to re-phrase. Jeffrin to do.

  6. Agreed to 
     - Fix figure captions to make consistent
     - Bibliography per section is ok, but fix inconsistent
       formatting
     - Section refs are incorrect: Search for 'section' keyword and
       make into real cross refs to the section numbers

  7. English corrections: ok.

  8. 7.2.2 service description:
     - The comment is not clear; ask for more explanation.

     - Workflow as GS: Not sure if this has to be drawn out in this
       case but adding a reference is a possibility. Need more
       information about 'taverna' and what they think its relevance
       is.

     - Collaboration: Reject. It seems inappropriate to add
       implementations.

     - Machine readability: Agree in principle but not sure what need
       to be added.

     - Collaboration: Add a sentence about 'dynamic nature' and
       'description language'

  - Other comments:
    - Jeffrin to check again who is the original author of the mutual
      authorization use case and add to contributors

    - Acknowledgment: Should 'work supported by' be kept? 
      - Confirm with relevant people first(e.g., Ian Foster)

    - Should refactor the use case document to make it consistent with
      the OGSA doc. But it is not clear how much work this will be.