[glue-wg] associations in JSON rendering (RE: NOTES: GLUE WG teleconference, Tuesday, July 1, 2014)

[Navarro, John-Paul F.]

Makes sense to me.

JP
On Jul 1, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Warren Smith <wsmith at tacc.utexas.edu> wrote:

> 
> David, Shiraz, and I emailed a bit and regarding 4) below, I think we're happy with Option 4. This seems a good middle ground between interoperability (the consumer knows that certain association directions will always be there) and flexibility (a project can also represent an association in the opposite direction).
> 
> Does that work for everyone?
> 
> 
> Warren
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org [glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org] on behalf of Navarro, John-Paul F. [navarro at mcs.anl.gov]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 10:33 AM
> To: OGF GLUE Working Group
> Subject: [glue-wg] NOTES: GLUE WG teleconference, Tuesday, July 1, 2014
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> glue-wg mailing list
> glue-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg