OGSA Teleconference 10 November 2004
====================================

* Participants

  Bill Horn (IBM)
  Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu)
  Fred Maciel (Hitachi)
  Mark Morgan (UVa)
  Takuya Mori (NEC / ANL)
  Andreas Savva (Fujitsu)
  Dave Snelling (Fujitsu)
  Latha Srinivasan (HP)
  Ravi Subramaniam (Intel)
  Jay Unger (IBM)
  
* Minutes approval

  - GGF12 security session minutes: revised minutes uploaded; approved
    with no changes.

* EGA-GGF meeting report

  - Dave S gave an overview of the EGA-GGF meeting: 

    The GGF presentation to EGA (see last week's minutes) went well;
    the atmosphere was very positive. The impression is that they
    would be happy to collaborate, perhaps under the OGSA banner;
    provided that the OGSA definition is precise enough. There seemed
    to be interest in working to refine what is there already. 

    Their focus is more tight than the GGF's; mainly within the
    enterprise. So by definition anything to do with crossing
    administrative domains (e.g., VOs) is out of scope. This includes
    many of the 'interesting' security problems. They are interested
    mainly in profiling, which may be complementary to GGF work.

    The level of detail of the presentation (reviewed on the previous
    call) was good. It's important to move further in the direction;
    this is a topic for the upcoming interim meeting.

    Next steps:
    - The EGA will provide us more detailed use cases and
      requirements. They will also review the presentation from a
      technical point of view. For example to determine how much of
      the material they need.

* F2F meeting update

  - List of hotels sent out
    - Some are within walking distance from the venue.
    - Jay will try to get a block of rooms under the IBM rate; but the
      rate may not be very different from the online price.
    - Jay will send out a map.

  - National airport is nearer, in a straight line, but Dulles might
    be more convenient. In any case taxis are expensive; better to
    rent.


* OGSA survey review

  [p2] Purpose
  - Very early draft; needs refinement
  - Identify major stakeholders both in GGF and outside. Stakeholders
    may be commercial entities, open source projects, etc.

  [p4]
  - 'Novelties' should be 'Novartis'
  - 'Users': Note that expected users are listed. OGSA-WG has not
    contacted any of them yet.

  [p8] EMS: 
  - Many projects might have different roles. For example, Intel also
    does implementation (close to platform position), but it is
    internal use only.
  - Discussed how to represent entities with such multiple
    roles. Might have two entries (especially if there is no strong
    connection between the different roles)

  [p9] RM:
  - WSDM should appear here. (Also perhaps HP's Apache project
    implementation of WSDM.)
  - Fred seems to be the best person to do a first draft of interested
    parties for this area.

  - Security area: 
    - Takuya will talk to Frank 

  - The purpose of the survey is to gather input for the draft roadmap
    and for OGSA v2 refinement. (OGSA v1 is too abstract.)
    - Not in place of top-down but to complement the top-down
      approach.

    - Concerns raised with how far the surveys will influence the
      direction of the work. Stakeholders may have different
      incentives (e.g, difference between 'early adopters' and
      existing implementations who may have vested interest in doing
      things in some specific way).
      - Probably the problem is perception: How 'binding' the results
        would appear to be on OGSA.
      - Desire to make clearer what kind of implementation feedback is
        needed.
    - Desire to get more input from interested parties; make the
      survey as broad as possible so that a single party's view is not
      dominant.

    - 'Purpose' slide additions:
      - Narrow implementation question from 'OGSA' to individual
        standards, e.g,. WSRF, WSN, WSDM.

* OGSA version 1.0 public comment review

  [Numbers refer to rows in the excel spreadsheet.]

  * Security comments 

  - [92] Consider CIM "possible model to use" but no hard decision
    yet. Work in some text if possible but this is v2 work. Note that
    it is not 'one more model to be abstracted.'

  - [93] ok
  - [94] discussed already
  - [95] v2 work
  - [96] 1. Revise first sentence to make it fit with the section.
         2. Change interdependencies to relations

  * General
    - [3] No intention to write complicated English. Some revisions
      made; others in v2.
    - [4] v2 work
    - [5] ok
    - [6] 1. V2 work
          2. Fig 2, 3 discussed last week and will make some revisions
          3. Model: Checked Security, RM and they look ok. Need to
             check the rest, but this too is probably going to be v2.
    - [7] Already discussed and agreed that no commercial examples in
          v1.
    - [8] ok
    - [9] v2 work
    - [10] v2 work
    - [11] Discussed in the past and agreed that we don't need to have
           exactly the same structure; revisit in v2
    - [12] Already made revisions (e.g., removed UML) to try and get
           the level closer. More widespread changes are probably v2.
    - [14] Disagree: keep as it is.
    - [15] Leave as it is
    - [16] Discussed in broad terms in v1; more detailed work in v2.
    - [17] To add reference to glossary (and vice versa)
    - [18] Revise abstract
    - [19] discussed alread
    - [20] 1. move SOA in front of OGSA
           2. remove (WS); and write as 'Web Services Architecture'
           3. 'OGSA services' : redundant to add OGSA; leave as is.

    - Also make a change to 'OGSA version 1.0' in line with other GGF material.

  - Requirements comments: Andreas to add his proposed replies in
    spreadsheet and discuss next week.