[jsdl-wg] GGF 13 notes and further discussion

[Karl Czajkowski]

On Mar 30, Christopher Smith loaded a tape reading:
> Given that JSDL is defining an ontology of terms so that we can all
> understand what is meant by "command line" or "file transfer", isn't the
> determination of mandatory or optional a bit out of scope? I can easily see
> a system based on negotiation where the two parties agree on which terms are
> consumable by the end system, so you can get this behaviour that way.
> 
> I guess I just worry that the user of JSDL's expectations for a particular
> job submission behaviour are met. Wouldn't it be nice to know if a
> particular attribute is rejected or not? This seems to me to be part of the
> submission protocol layer.
> 
> -- Chris
> 

Yes, I guess I can buy that.  It is a fine line, indeed, between
trying to capture the meaning of the job and negotiating about
variations on it.  I think what was concerning me, while I had on a
declarative-job-language hat, is that I expect the extensions
mechanisms to be used out their in a world where types and
specifications are not introduced in a coordinated fashion.

Whether I can understand the meaning of a JSDL instance depends on
whether I am aware of all the extension specifications the producer
has used.  I agree that this might be enough, and it is up to the
enclosing protocol context to determine how one filters, projects,
negotiates, or otherwise communicates the "important" job information
from a particular producer to a particular consumer.  From that point
of view, critical/non-critical is a particular communications idiom
used to increase the probability of such communication succeeding in
heterogeneous environments.

Sorry for the red herring...

karl

-- 
Karl Czajkowski
karlcz at univa.com