OGSA Teleconference - 20 April 2005
===================================

* Participants

  Pete Ziu (Northrop Grumman)
  Jay Unger (IBM)
  Jem Treadwell (HP)
  Andreas Savva (Fujitsu)
  Mark Morgan (UVa)
  Tom Maguire (IBM)
  Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu)
  Andrew Grimshaw (UVa)
  Mike Behrens (R2AD, LLC)
  
  Minutes: Andreas Savva

* Minutes of April 18 approved with no changes

* May F2F update

  - Waiting for room reservation at IC
  - Many people have already said that they will be attending 
    - More than 13 for the main meeting (Mon & Tue)
    - More than 11 for the Data (Thu)

  - Any hotel suggestions? The url sent last week has a lot of
    information (too many choices)
    - Andrew stayed at the "John Howard Hotel" last time. It was nice
      but there was no network connectivity. 
  - Arranging to stay in the same hotel sounds like a good idea but
    there was no proposal on how to go about arranging it.

  - Arriving at Heathrow vs Gatwick: Probably no big difference.
    Heathrow might be more convenient (Heathrow Express).

* Basic Profile update

  - Calls have been very productive; very good progress.
    - Many but not all artifacts fixed/closed.
    - Trying to close the rest this week or perhaps early next
      week. 
    - Planning one more teleconf next week, same day, at the 1-3pm
      timeslot

  - There are 11 artifacts resolved: revisions not completed yet.
  - There are some 'Pending' state issues that need discussion. Have
    to get specific people on the call to make sure a proper
    discussion is done. 
  - Remaining are 'fixed'; need people to check them and close them.
    - How to check 'fixed' better?
      - Ask people who will review doc to check?
      - From the BP team's perspective, 'fixed' may be good
        enough. The OGSA-WG will have to check the document anyway
        before going through with the submission. It might be a good
        place to do the 'Closed' transition then.

  Action: Tom, to help reviewers confirm changes, will cross-link each
          issue to the specific requirement statement using the
          'Category' field.

  - Overall the document is in good state for GGF14 submission.

  Action: Tom to send a copy of the BP draft to Marty Humphrey and ask
          him to review it.

* BES BoF update

  - Scheduled the first call tomorrow morning. Mail has been sent to
    both the BES BoF list and OGSA-WG list.
    - There is a revised agenda based on received feedback
    - Charter bashing is main topic

  (Is a Naming call being planned? Not yet. Andrew is in the process
  of contacting the people he has in mind for co-chairs. There is no
  GFSG tracker artifact for this proposed WG but GGF (Steve C) is
  aware of it.)

* Roadmap document review

  - Hiro has submitted the issues from the last review (19 in total)

  Action: Andreas to set up Roadmap tracker in the same way as the BP
          tracker (same values for status) >(Done)

  - Jem volunteered to review the document afterwards and verify that
    the actions are done.

  - Reviewed by tracker item

  - "4.3 EM profile" comment: Agree with comment on the section
    title. Current contents are consistent.

  - For each section describing a Profile we should include a list of
    what the "Profile Template" document requires of each profile. The
    list will offer an indication on what the status of each profile
    is likely to be.

    - Agreed to add such a sub-section to each profile section in the
      Roadmap.
      - See "Appendix A" of the Profile Template for an example.
      - Does it address Dave's comment 1374? Probably but need to
        check.

      Action: Jay to make a better representation of the
              table in Appendix A of the Profile Template document.
      Action: Tom to update the Profile Template with the new version
              of the table.
      Action: Hiro to include a sub-section with such a table for each
              profile in the Roadmap document.

  - Section 4.3: Statement starting "If appropriate implementation
    ..." does not add anything. The real issue is the need for
    standards on resource modelling and resource access. And how
    resources are modelled in OGSA. This requirement should be stated
    to clarify why WSDM and WS-CIM are mentioned as possible
    candidates here.

    - (The above point triggered a long BES-related side-discussion
      and how things should tie together. WSRF vs other mechanisms,
      JSDL, does BES need to care about the resource modelling and how
      much does, etc. Andrew will do a short write-up to clarify the
      issues for this section and for BES and send it out for
      comment.)
      
    Action: Andreas will send out the URL to the latest JSDL
            specification and to a JSDL Introduction presentation.
    Action: Hiro will schedule the JSDL introduction presentation for
            next Monday's call (to start after the first hour mark).
    
  - Title revision: moved 'version 1.0' for clarity.
  - Section 1: forward reference to 'profiles' fixed.
  - Mark Linesch's comment on section 2.0: Decided to bring back old
    text and add the new text as extra explanation. 
  - Footnote: deleted as obsolete.
  - Title of section 2: revised.

  - Conformance testing or tools: Not clear if GGF should be doing
    this. Something to discuss in the future perhaps; leave out for
    now.

  - "OGSA branding" controlled by GFSG: This section will be updated
    with the GFSG statement when it becomes available.
    
    Hiro has sent a draft of this section as a separate document to
    the GFSG.

    GGF is planning to obtain a TM and Service mark for OGSA.

    - Branding at different levels: WG and Document names
    - Compilant software and who can claim OGSA implementations

    - Decided to leave the text as a placeholder for now (might need
      some revision to change the tone)

  - Adjourned; the review to continue next week.

* Next week calls

  - Monday: Profile template
  - Wednesday: Roadmap document