* Minutes for the Joint RUS/UR WG Telephone Conference, March 23rd, 2007

** Attendance:

   Xiaoyu Chen <Xiaoyu.Chen@brunel.ac.uk>	Brunel Univ.	RUS-WG  
   Gilbert Netzer <noname@pdc.kth.se>		KTH		RUS-WG
   Michele Pace <michele.pace@cnaf.infn.it>	INFN		
   
** Agenda

*** Date and time of next teleconference

    Friday, April 20th, 2007, 12:30-13:30 CET 

*** Draft 19 of the RUS specification

    Gilbert noted that the specification needs clarification on how to proceed
    if a user tries to extract a UsageRecord where she only has access to some
    of the elements in the UsageRecord. He suggests that access should be
    denied in this case. He also notes that this problem does not occur on 
    writes.

    Gibert also suggest that a clarification should be inserted into the
    specification about how namespace mappings are passed to the XPath
    expressions used as search terms. He suggests that all namespace mappings
    that are in scope for the surrounding XML element should be available
    in the XPath expression.

    Michele pointed out that the RecordHistory element has been removed from
    the current version 19 of the draft. 
    Xiaoyu explained that this was done to maintain compatibility with the
    published Usage Record Format that containes elements to record the
    create history, and that logging information about modification should
    be retrieved using implementation specific means.
    Gilbert suggested that a separate method should be used to extract audit
    data for a UsageRecord.

    Xiaoyu asks about if the mapping of a possible 
    <urf:Resource description="VOName" /> element should be specified in the
    RUS Core Specification and/or if it should be part of the advanced
    specification.
    Gilbert thinks that this property belongs into UR space and should be
    handled in the new URF version 2 and that a mapping should go into the
    advanced specification because the core specification does not concern
    itself with aggregation and therefor does not need to handle UR content.


    Xiaoyu asked also about the use of XUpdate in the RUS::modifyUsageRecords
    method.
    Gilbert suggested changing the XUpdate to XQuery update extensions since
    the XUpdate specification seems to not be maintained any more and never
    advanced beyond draft stage.

    Gilbert also asked about handling of concurrent modifications.
    Xiaoyu pointed out that a note about this is already present in the
    specification.


*** RUS Charter

    Gilbert reported that he send out an updated version of the Charter
    on the mailing list.
    Xiaoyu pointed out that LCG-RUS is used as testbed for LCG, he will
    send an eMail with a clarification so that the Charter can be updated
    accordingly.

*** Other issues

    Xiaoyu also reported about his work in proges, a 
    RUS Service Developement Toolkit:

    The Resource Usage Service Development Toolkit defines abstract components 
    conforms to OGF-RUS core and advanced specifications. With the interfaces 
    and abstract classes to be defined in the toolkit, the concrete RUS 
    implementations may implement the core interfaces and classes while 
    optionally implement advanced interfaces and classes as well as extended 
    from the interfaces and classes in order to accommodate to custom 
    requirements for environment or deployment-specific implementations. Within
    the toolkit, a default simple RUS implementation is provided to ensure the 
    both core and advanced functionalities defined in RUS specification with
    centralised usage records storage (XML:DB for usage record in the format of
    OGF-UR). Other Grid services or components that require interacting with 
    RUS service will thereby only depend on this abstract component and 
    concrete implementations will be completely pluggable. Instantiation of 
    concrete implementations will be performed by the factory framework defined
    in this toolkit.