[glue-wg] NOTES: GLUE WG teleconference, Tuesday, July 1, 2014

[Navarro, John-Paul F.]

Present: Florido, Salvatore, Warren, Shiraz, JP

Meeting folder: http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf/glue-wg?folder_id=6588

> Agenda/minutes:
> 
> 1) LDAP rendering: assess final wg comments and votes and perhaps forward for public comment
> Previous:
>> Action 1: Florido will coordinate with Maria to confirm that all the recommended testing was completed
>> Action 2: Once testing is complete, Florido will share a schema document without the release candidate lable
>> Action 3: JP/Shiraz will merge schema into rendering document, e-mail list to vote and approve document for release to public comment

Action 1: Florido will post final schema by tomorrow/Wednesday to meeting folder
Action 2: JP/Shiraz will merge schema into rendering document and post proposed public comment document to meeting folder
Action 3: JP/Shiraz will call for e-mail list vote to release document for public comment after OGF 41
Action 4: Final vote to release to public comment at OGF 41 including e-mail list votes

> 2) Enumerations: approve enumerations process document
All action items complete.
Keep topic on agenda to discuss requests for new enumerations.

> 3) Cloud Extensions: compare benefits and disadvantages of both approaches
> Previous:
>> Action 1: Shiraz/JP ask Andre and OGF steering committee for ideas on resolving two approaches supported by 1 community each

Warren/JP propose XSEDE abstaining in a 2.0 vs 2.1, making GLUE 2.1 the cloud interoperability standard.
XSEDE would produce a Community Practice Profile for using GLUE 2.0 to describe Cloud Infrastructures
Action 1: Shiraz/JP will find a Community Practice, Profile example for Warren
Action 2: Salvatore and Warren will prepare OGF 41 slides presenting advantages and disadvantages if approaches
Action 3: Shiraz/JP will ask Andre and Steering Committee for suggestions regarding dilemma

> 4) JSON: continue rendering discussions, discuss next steps.
> Previous:
>> Representing association, a to b, b to a, or both?
>> Option 1: schema allows both directions, rendering document identifies directionality rules that should be followed
>> Option 2: schema requires both directions
>> Option 3: schema requires one direction which we consider to be the best, and in few cases may require both directions (applying should rules in rendering document)
>> Option 4: schema requires one direction which we consider to be the best, the other direction is optional
>> We want to discuss this with David on the call.
>> Stephen pointed out that optional relations are ambiguous: if missing is there no relation or is it a missing relation?

Action 1: Warren e-mail David directly about how to represent associations.

> 5) Future meetings
> OGF 41 sessions July 16 or 17
- One session each day at 10:30 slot for 90 minutes (total 2 sessions)
- Topics: LDAP, Enumerations, Cloud, JSON
Action 1: Shiraz will send meeting coordinates to e-mail list

July 8 at the normal time we will discuss/prepare OGF 41 slides:
- Florido and JP will discuss draft Enumeration slides
- Others with draft slides to discuss are welcome to attend

> July 29?
We will decide at OGF 41 is this meeting is needed.

> OGF 42 September 8-12 in London, http://autonomic-conference.org/
This would be a good meeting due to European representation to have the 2.1 schema and XSEDE profile drafts ready to discuss and release for public comment.


Regards,

JP and Shiraz