[GSA-RG] Proposal for a new structure of the GSA Requirements document

[Philipp]

Alexander, Joachim,

thank you for that effort. To me, this gives a new spin to the good old 
requirements document which is around for quite a while ...

I think, since we want to link the Use Case document with the interop. 
work, a concise description of the requirements in the light of common 
use cases and existing OGF standards is a good way to go.

More inline ...

Alexander Papaspyrou schrieb:
> Philipp, all,
> 
> Joachim Lepping and I thought about a new structure for the GSA reqs 
> document, which has been around for a while now. We would suggest to put 
> a stronger focus on gap analysis regarding what's there in OGF and 
> what's needed for realizing certain (hopefully common and useful) Use Cases.
> 
> Our intention in doing so was to foster the process of proposing 
> recommendations (I use this OGF overloaded term loosely here) to other 
> WGs in the scheduling context in order to kick off discussion there. 
> Hopefully, this will then lead to an incorporation of our proposals into 
> current standards.
> 
> Since the interaction between us and the different WGs is probably going 
> to be an ongoing process, we would suggest to focus on simple use cases 
> that can be easily realized. This is also the reason why we left out 
> certain parts of Nicola's and Ramin's requirements stuff. As a first, 
> very basic example, we picked HPC Job Scheduling (this will be difficult 
> enough to fully cover). Additionally, we added what was formerly called 
> "Complex Workflow", assuming that this comprises jobs with (data) 
> interdependencies. Of course, these examples are just proposals. 
> However, they could serve as an example for how discussion on the 
> recommendation part could be organized in our group in Dortmund.
Is the level of detail given in GFD.64, what you have in mind? I think, 
especially wrt the HPC use case, we may also look into the stuff done in 
the HPCP context.

> The general structure of the document is intended as follows: in the 
> third chapter (requirements), general requirements of Grid scheduling 
> are discussed on a pretty high level (list of desiderata). The use case 
> part should be very concrete on what is necessary to tackle for each of 
> the examples. This subchapter will then serve as a reference for the 
> comparison to what current efforts in OGF do or plan to do (chapter 5). 
> We grouped the WGs with respect to what is absolutely necessary for 
> doing scheduling, what would be nice to have and what is related in 
> general, but pretty far away. The final chapter (recommendations) should 
> then again follow the structure of requirements; there, general 
> recommendations for other higher-level WGs could be given in the first 
> part. In the second part, very concrete recommendations should be given 
> to other WGs regarding the different Use Cases, respectively.
It might be also a good idea to include (maybe categorised as "future 
aspects") efforts which are going on in OGF, but which are not 
"specification-near" yet. From the top of my head I could think of 
WS-Agreement Negotation and the activity schema instance work. If you 
just give brief directions there (with the necessary disclaimer), this 
might be helpful, too).

> Possibly, if we see that this is getting to much / too large, we could 
> spawn the Use Case-specific recommendations to separate documents; 
> these, however, should be created jointly with the affected WGs (think 
> of the HPCP profile approach).
This is one of the issues to be discussed on Thursday at OGF. I guess 
that we might again find ourselves being blundered into the "broadest 
view" trap, but if we stay realistic and maybe evaluate the interest in 
the use case-specific recommendations before making them a separate 
document, this could be a good option.

> We hope that our proposal is somewhat useful for GSA. Questions and 
> rants are, of course, very welcome.
It is. Let us put this on the agenda and start collecting discussion 
issues ...
> 
> Looking forward to a lively discussion in Boston and beyond, we remain with
See you there. Have a safe flight, Philipp.

> 
> Kind regards,
> Joachim & Alexander
> 
> -- 
> Dipl.-Inform. Alexander Papaspyrou
> http://ds.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de/~alexp 
> <http://ds.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de/%7Ealexp>
> 
> Robotics Research Institute                   phone : +49(231)755-5058
> Information Technology Section                fax   : +49(231)755-3251
> Dortmund University of Technology, Germany
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --
>   gsa-rg mailing list
>   gsa-rg at ogf.org
>   http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/gsa-rg