* Data session
--------------

** DAIS - Alignment with OGSA doc

     Globus+IBM and DAIS worked things out prior to GGF. There was no
     obvious difference between what's in the OGSA document and the
     DAIS presentation.

     Comment: DAIS started from RDB but has grown to cover various
              data sources, e.g., XML and files, hence the overlap
              with GFS-WG --- see further down.

     Agreed: Keep watching.

** OREP - Building on top of what DAIS was; a bit out of sync at the
     moment. Might take a bit to come round. 

     Because of their relation with DAIS we expect that they'll move
     over to current DAIS abstraction. (No action on our part.)

     Agreed: Keep watching.

** PA - Not clear yet if OGSA data abstractions are what they
     need. (Waiting for more refinement.)

     - They don't claim to be OGSA at the moment.
     - They are well advanced; they have stuff working. It will take
       them a while to 'come round'.

     - Agreed: Let them finish and then look into possibility for an
               ogsi/ogsa re-factoring. In any case it doesn't affect
               us too deeply --- mainly implementation from our point
               of view.
   
** GFS - Not clear that they want to build on top of DAIS. (SOA too
     complex for them at the moment?)

   - They seem to have narrower focus than desired (by us). Not well
     integrated with what's happening. (They want to support POSIX I/O
     APIs and (?) global name space services.)
   - Their 2nd BOF voted to make it a RG (23 for, 8 against) but that
     doesn't seem right. There are already products out in this space
     so it is not a new topic.

   - Agreed: Look at them again when/if they become a WG.

* PE session
------------

** GRAAP - Building on top of OGSI. Alignment with OGSA doc.

     - Agreed: We have to watch this space. 

       In particular we need to really understand what agreement is,
       as it is creeping through the entire architecture. We should
       begin by highlighting all concepts of agreement that *we* are
       interested in and making sure abstractions are strong enough to
       be used throughout.

     - Comments: 
       - It looks like there are still many issues not addressed. Work
         is in initial stages; needs refinement.
       - DAIS using agreement. Not sure if they are also defining
         agreement terms for data.(?)

** JSDL - Presentation not just on job submission description. Willing
     to explore OGSA role but also looking at other grid environments.

   - Presentation gave the impression that they are trying to tackle
     more than what their charter says. They are not. It is just job
     submission description.
   - GRAAP is strongly involved in the WG. DRMAA is also interested in
     it.
   - JSDL would also like to be used in non-ogsa/agreement settings.

   - Agreed: Keep watching.

** DRMAA - Interested in exploring role in OGSA.

   - There is no overlap between DRMAA & JSDL. Think of DRMAA as
     having defined a job template that can use jsdl inside.
   - So far the focus has been on legacy stuff. Finishing with C, java
     binding and may focus next on gwsdl (ogsi) binding.  

   - Agreed: They are not affecting the architecture but the
             implementation.
   - Agreed: Useful to continue a dialogue. 

   - Action: Andrew to look into bringing them into PE/Provisioning
             subgroup.

** GESA - Want to be part of OGSA. Exploring relationship with GRAAP &
   JSDL.

* Core session
--------------

** OGSA-SEC - Alignment with OGSA doc

** AuthZ - OGSI based.

** RUS - Want to be part of OGSA. Relation with UR, GESA. 

** UR - Content definition. No obvious conflict.

* Platform session
------------------

** CMM - Most work moved to OASIS-WSDM. Do gap analysis to find new
   niche.

** P2P - Working on requirements. Feedback to OGSA.

** AA - ??