[jsdl-wg] JSDL 2.0 BOF?

[Philipp Wieder]

Dear All,

then I would suggest we get a slot, collect topics and prioritize them,
and make an agenda for OGF 30. I assume we will have a substantial
amount of people there and other may join remotely.

Best regards, Philipp.

Am 01.10.10 15:03, schrieb Andrew Grimshaw:
> All,
> I very much would like to get the JSDL 2.0 work going. I'm sure we can get a
> slot from Joel.
> Speaking as the Architecture area director, JSDL 1.0 and its extensions has
> been very successful, but along the way several impediments to continued use
> for production systems have been identified (see PGI discussions of almost a
> year ago.) JSDL is the glue (no pun intended) that holds job interop
> together. So keeping it up-to-date with emerging or deferred requirements is
> essential. 
> 
> I know I would attend a session with a list of items from Mark Morgan (as
> long as it is not on Friday, when I will be on a plane.)
> 
> A
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jsdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:jsdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of
> Philipp Wieder
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 6:38 AM
> To: Andre Merzky
> Cc: OGF JSDL-WG ML
> Subject: Re: [jsdl-wg] JSDL 2.0 BOF?
> 
> Count me in for work on JSDL. The question is whether we should (still
> can) ask Joel for a slot.
> 
> Best regards, Philipp.
> 
> Am 30.09.10 18:43, schrieb Andre Merzky:
>> Quoting [Andreas Savva] (Sep 30 2010):
>>>
>>> 2. Adoption of GLUE XML schema
>>>    - Pending on a GLUE normative XML schema published by *OGF*. Work on  
>>> this seems to have restarted recently, but I am not sure what the exact  
>>> state is.
>>
>> AFAIK, the GLUE WG plans to release a draft b y OGF-30.
>>
>>
>>> I know people like to say 'JSDL 2.0' but, really, in the best tradition
> of  
>>> divide-and-conquer there are a set of well-understood steps that can  
>>> evolve things forward. As such I do not see the need for a BOF. I think
> it  
>>> would actually be counterproductive because we'd go back to talking about
> 
>>> what to do rather than doing it. The real question is whether there are  
>>> people willing to work on these. A related question is whether they would
> 
>>> be willing to work in JSDL-WG. At the last OGF it wasn't clear to me that
> 
>>> this is the case.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Cheers, Andre.
>>
>>
> --
>   jsdl-wg mailing list
>   jsdl-wg at ogf.org
>   http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsdl-wg
>