[dmis-bof] Comments on the charter?

[Hiro Kishimoto]

Hi Bill,

I really appreciate your support for OGSA and WSRF.
If you will follow "OGSA spec name guideline" and willing
to keep consistent it with OGSA-data architecture, please
consider to use OGSA prefixed name, e.g. OGSA-DM, for your
WG.

GGF steering group (including myself) is strongly promoting
OGSA branding (of WG name and specification name) if appropriate.

Thanks,
----
Hiro Kishimoto

William E. Allcock wrote:
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Hiro Kishimoto [mailto:hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com] 
>>Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 2:31 AM
>>To: allcock at mcs.anl.gov
>>Cc: dmis-bof at ggf.org; Foster Ian
>>Subject: Re: [dmis-bof] Comments on the charter?
>>
>>
>>Hi Bill,
>>
>>Data transfer is one of key data services and I am very 
>>appreciate your
>>effort to standardize its interface. I've read your charter proposal
>>and have several comments below;
>>
>>(1) SOAP/WSDL interface
>>I take it you define interface on top of Web Service. Do you plan to
>>define it on vanilla WS-I or OGSA WSRF Basic Profile? As an OGSA-WG
>>co-chair, I hope the latter. The better approach is hybrid; abstract
>>IDL semantic definition plus one or more concrete rendering 
>>definitions.
>>OGSA-Byte-IO's work gives you a good example.
> 
> 
> Since *I* need a WSRF compliant service, I will push for one of those.  I do
> think this is going to be a point of contention though.  Your idea about the
> IDL is a good one, but means significantly more work :-(.  It means 3
> documents not one or two, but it makes sense, so I will definitely propose
> this option to the group and see what kind of response we get.
> 
> 
>>https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewCategory.php?group_id=
>>154&category_id=1058
>>
>>(2) Relation to OGSA
>>I know you are active member of OGSA-D WG. Do you intend to place this
>>work in the OGSA data architecture? Or, you make it to be combinable
>>with OGSA works? If you agree to go with OGSA, the following guideline
>>gives you more advice.
>>
>>https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ggf-editor/document/OGSA_
>>related_working_group_research_group_and_specification_naming_
>>guideline/en/1
> 
> 
> Yes, this will go into the OGSA data architecture.  The OGSA data group
> "commissioned this work" and that is why they are pushing for a non-file
> specific standard as that meets their needs better.  I understand the need,
> but as is so often the case in computer science, we may need to "eat the
> elephant one bite at a time".  I suspect that the general solution is to
> much to take on the first bite, so we will likely go with a file specific
> version and follow up with a more general version, though I could be
> pleasantly surprised and discover there is a reasonable way to get both in
> one shot.
> 
> 
>>(3) WG name
>>Since all GGF WGs work for standardization, I think you don't need to
>>name new WG as "Data Movement Interface *Standardization* WG." I think
>>- Data Movement WG, or
>>- Data Movement Interface WG
>>is better.
> 
> 
> I actually put the Standardization on the end so we would have a
> pronounceable acronym :-).  However, I will bow to the wishes of the group
> and area directors.
> 
> 
>>(4) Charter draft template
>>GFSG needs more information for charter draft.
>>Please use the OGSA-data WG's charter draft attached as an template
>>(which includes 7 questions you should answer).
> 
> 
> Will do.
> 
> Bill
> 
>>Thanks,
>>----
>>Hiro Kishimoto
>>
>>William E. Allcock wrote:
>>
>>>I haven't received any comments on the charter.  I would 
>>
>>love to believe
>>
>>>that is because you are all waiting to have your computers 
>>
>>repaired after
>>
>>>weeping uncontrollably on your keyboards due to the beauty 
>>
>>of the prose...
>>
>>>unfortunately, it is more likely that you have not taken 
>>
>>time out of your
>>
>>>insanely hectic schedule to review it :-).
>>>
>>>Please do so.  It wont take long.  I opted for very little 
>>
>>prose and then a
>>
>>>timeline.  If people could comment on if they think the 
>>
>>text is sufficient,
>>
>>>and more importantly on whether the timeline is reasonable 
>>
>>and has the right
>>
>>>things in it, that would be wonderful.
>>>
>>>Please remember, this can only be a success if we have 
>>
>>participation from a
>>
>>>variety of groups.  Particularly for this one since we have 
>>
>>competing
>>
>>>existing implementations, and we will need to get some 
>>
>>momentum behind this
>>
>>>to get people to change and conform.  They have to believe 
>>
>>it provides some
>>
>>>advantage to do so...
>>>
>>>So, now! quick! before another email distracts you! read it! send me
>>>comments! I attached it again to this email to make it 
>>
>>*REALLY* easy!
>>
>>>:-)
>>>
>>>I had the above as "shouting", but then wondered how many 
>>
>>spam filters would
>>
>>>tag it as spam...
>>>
>>>Bill
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>William E. Allcock
>>>Argonne National Laboratory
>>>Bldg 221, Office C-115A
>>>9700 South Cass Ave
>>>Argonne, IL 60439-4844
>>>Office Phone:  +1-630-252-7573
>>>Office Fax:      +1-630-252-1997
>>>Cell Phone:      +1-630-854-2842
>>>
>>
> 
>