[infod-wg] minutes from 21 July call

[Chris Kantarjiev]

Dieter, Shailendra, Cecile, Abdeslem, Chris (minutes)

apologies: Susan, Steve F

+ We believe that action 27 should just be pushed to action 17.

+ Went over chris' list from May F2F for names/dates:

Agree and circulate terminology: publication, publication description,
publication pre-processing, consumption, artifacts, entities.
	- Dieter, John, Cecile
	+ completed as of Chicago

Circulate new Use Case Template
	- Steve F.
	+ complete

Circulate R-GMA Network Monitoring Use Case Notes (Overview, Attributes of
objects in the registry, Steps, What changes in the registry at each step)
	- Steve F.
	+ partially complete?

First draft of Nextgrid Animation Use Case
	- Stephen Davey
	+ complete

Clean up specification
	- Cecile
	+ already entered for 4. August

Produce interaction diagram to guide readers in understanding general usage
	- Chris
	+ need spec/api to settle

Write up consumer service requirement - is this addressed by POBOX?
	- Steve F.

Create INFOD patterns based on Cecile's document for INFOD F2F at Abingdon -
	- Steve F. and Susan
         + superceded

Investigate if  implementing (1) Getdata (2) Consume/Receive (3) Subscribe
(Create Consumer) on an entity is the same as an R-GMA Consumer Service.
	- Abdeslem
         + superceded by POBOX

Investigate how WSN Pull Point relates to R-GMA Consumer Service
	- Abdeslem
         + superceded by POBOX

Review Consumptions (e.g., preprocessing of messages prior to receipt, shared
consumptions)
	- Dieter, Shailendra, Cecile
         + 11. August 2005, possible dupe?

Add pattern of many publishers publishing using the same PublicationType via 
association
	- Cecile
         + may just explain this in the spec

Review separation of data retention from data publishing
	- Cecile and Dieter
         + 11. August, possible dupe?

WSN Summary Review
	- Susan and Abdeslem
         + 11. August at latest?

Define late binding and determine where late binding is supported
	- Shailendra
         - expanding recipient list from logical EPR?
         + 11. August

Define Non-events - are they are deadline related?
	- Cecile and Dieter
         + 4. August

Define INFOD Factoring
	- Cecile
         + 4. August

Issues (with some actions):

What’s the difference between a disseminator and a WSN broker? publication and
WSN topic?  Vocabulary and WSN filter?
Can WSN send message directly to a consumer by name?
         - Abdeslem and Susan, part of WSN review

Should Vocabulary Management and Identity Management be part of the specification?
         - no, see email from Dieter on 20. July

Publications are defined by topics in WSN, how does that differ from INFOD
mechanisms for controlling publications through vocabularies?
        * Review what’s in the specification on vocabularies and give feedback -
          Steve Fisher
        * Review what's in the specification about disseminators and give feedback
        - Abdeslem and Susan, part of WSN review

Do disseminators provide transforms?
        - Shailendra and Dieter
        * may require/desire some specific patterns to show how this is usable
          as a queueing system, to be done after current rewrite (4. Aug)

What’s special about INFOD disseminators?         e.g.,
          Retention of information
          Querying information
          Auditing and tracking
        * open until after current rewrite (4. Aug)

+ Steve's item deferred to next week (28. Jul). item 27 doesn't make sense
let's just give item 17 to Steve F.

+ We agreed that Abdeslem's writeup 
(http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/infod-wg/2005/07/msg00016.html) 
clears up issue 1.
Needs to be moved to the issues doc, along with the relevant Chicago
F2F excerpt 
(http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/infod-wg/2005/07/msg00017.html), 
from Cecile.

+ We spent some time trying to understand Dieter's writeup for issue 7
(http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/infod-wg/2005/07/msg00013.html).
The basic premise is clear, but it needs more in-depth explanation
before being moved into the spec.

The issues around different vocabularies was particularly ... contentious.
There appears to be a need for a general interface for verifying
specifications against a vocabulary, which is something we had
been avoiding so far - but it appears to be very necessary for
the proper functioning of the registry. It might be interal
to the registry, or it might be externalized to other infod actors.
Which should it be? Concensus seems to be, at least for now,
that it is internal to the registry.
	* This should be captured as an issue...

+ Items for next week... continue on 7 and then...

    Actions with target date of <= 28 Jul 2005

       27 Steve F
       20 Vijay
       21 Susan
       26 Abdeslem

    Issues with target date of <= 28 Jul 2005

       1  Abdeslem
       7  Dieter
       8  Abdeslem, Shailendra
       21 Dieter
       2  Shailendra
       5  Dieter, Cecile
       11 Abeslem, Cecile


(There are a number of actions with a date of 31 Jul 2005, not included here, 
but beware!)