OGSA teleconference 28 July 2004 ================================ * Participants Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Jeffrin Von Reich (HP) Apologies: Frank Siebenlist, Jem Treadwell, Latha Srinivasan. Minutes: Andreas Savva * Agenda bashing Obviously no quorum for the v2 process discussion but decided to talk it over and generate a proposal. No minutes ready for approval! Andreas apologized for the backlog and promised to deliver in reverse chronological order. * F2F meeting update Hiro received the hotel list from Fujitsu Labs America (FLA) and will post to the list. Hiro will also add information about the place that he and some other people stayed last time (Sep. 03 F2F); free high speed internet access was but one of its advantages. Action: Hiro to post the hotel list. Action: Hiro to synchronize with Ravi (when Ravi returns from vacation) about the F2F preparations. * Use case document review - There is one comment that was not discussed last time: the Functional requirements and services sections appear too similar and is not clear what their respective roles are. https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?thread_id=575&forum_id=411 - The main difference is that the functional requirements shouldn't change even if the OGSA specification does. (But we asked people to use terminology from the specification for both these sections.) - Options: - Go through the UC doc and change names to map them to new ones (in current OGSA specification) or - Add explanation of the difference (and maybe also add that the terminology will be changed in a later UC version) - Agreed to: - Remove 'platform' from "OGSA platform services utilization" section title. (It is too confusing since this term has a complex history.) - Add a brief explanation on the structure of the use cases in the introduction - Add that terminology used in UC doc is consistent with version 014(?) of the OGSA specification - And also that the UC document is used as input to the ogsa specification; and people should refer to the latest version of the specification. - Actions/Revision Plan - Jeffrin to add comments to trackers to answer all issues and how they will be fixed. - Hiro will talk to and convince the Area Director that all the comments are minor - Jeffrin will send a summary mail to ogsa list listing comments and what the response is - Jeffrin will update the UC document as agreed to (making sure that change tracking is on) and put it on gridforge - The group will review the UC document changes once more in a teleconf; based on the result accept changes and put back in process. * OGSA V2 process discussion - Based on the document that Dave Berry sent out a couple of weeks back: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA_Documents/en/2 - It shows 3 root documents: Use Case, OGSA v2, Ogsa Glossary - But the group is also committed to producing a Roadmap document (first draft for GGF12!) Action: Hiro to add the Roadmap to this document - Use case document - There are a number of unprocessed use cases in the tier2 document. - Consensus that we should not start working on producing a next version of OGSA Use Case document at this moment. It's low priority and we should concentrate on more urgent activities. - Glossary - It should be kept in tune with latest version of the OGSA specification - Some discussion on how to do it in a lightweight manner - Get people to submit new terms proposals to the tracker - Publish as web page to provide access to the latest version easily - A persistent url to a word document might be simpler - Jem did an excellent job; hopefully he'll agree to stay on as editor. Action: Hiro to confirm that Jem is willing to remain Glossary Editor. - OGSA v2 - Two options - Start from scratch with a new document or - Refine v1 and add new stuff - It looks that the proposal only calls for one completely new section: the "Service Summaries." - Consensus on refining v1 rather than starting with a completely new doc. - In addition each design team does as a separate document - Scenarios - Service descriptions - And a summary of this is in v2 "Service Summaries" - Concerns with having the same, or very similar, text (e.g., "Service Summaries") in two documents; it may cause maintenance problems. - Options: - v2 as refined v1 with reference to design team documents or - No v2 but instead just have capability documents - (Rejected because we have to make sure we have a consistent architecture) - Agreed that v2 should be more or less the same as v1 - Made more consistent through the horizontal refactoring/refinement that Ravi proposed - And with just a reference to the companion documents produced by each design team that describe services rather than including service summaries in v2. Actions: - Design team leaders should produce design team schedule by(for) the F2F - Hiro to send reminder and track progress - Other discussion: - Resource Mgmt chapter in v1 - The chapter talks about Mgmt but does not list services - Not clear how it can be refined to come up with service list - Need to get more consistent attendance of people on the calls to have a shared view - Worries about having too many documents and not enough people - Obviously OGSA-WG needs more help to finish v2 - The aim is to end up with a set of WGs that will do all the detailed work - The data team is a good first example; many people not in OGSA-WG have joined that team. - This is one reason why the roadmap is essential to provide guidance on what to focus on and in which order. - Roadmap - The Roadmap document is OGSA-WG's scenario to address other bodies/companies requirements. - How to start working on the roadmap - Get input from design team leads about what is *possible* by GGF12 and (more importantly) - Get input on what is *needed* and in which order from users - In particular need to get input from companies, e.g., HP, IBM, FJ, etc, as well as from various ongoing projects Actions: - Jeffrin to think about HP priorities and give input to the group - Hiro to contact other companies and organizations, e.g., Oracle, SUN, etc. - Keep track of whom to contact and where we got input from - Input from other standard bodies - EGA focuses more on infrastructure and applications closer to infrastructure - OASIS, DMTF, etc - DMTF has roadmap but GGF and OASIS don't; they are collections of working groups. - Might need to understand what they are doing by looking through their topics - Need more than what existing WGs are doing; there is also the separate issue of creating new groups to do what's needed. - Might end up with a 3-d map - What is being done now - What OGSA wants other groups to do - What order those groups (and OGSA) are planning to move forward