[jsdl-wg] JSDL 2.0 BOF?

[Philipp Wieder]

Hi Andreas,

please excuse, I mixed things up.

Maybe I try to clarify:
a) We have the list of next JSDL issues for quite some time, but nobody
was really taking them up.
b) Andrew would like to discuss about JSDL 2.0.

So I deliberatly ignored the "BoF" issue and was referring to a proper
JSDL-WG session to re-discuss the list we have AND see what Andrew's
idea for a next version of JSDL are. I think this is covered by the
current JSDL scope.

In case there is a common understanding that such a discussion on a
future version of  JSDL is out of the scope of the current JSDL-WG, than
I haven't seen this yet.

I am definitly not in favour of seperating a) and b) by doing a BoF
separated from the core JSDL-WG.

Best regards, Philipp.

Am 01.10.10 16:12, schrieb Andreas Savva:
> Philipp & Andrew
> 
> I described the outcome of discussions from previous OGFs in my last
> email. I see no reason to collect topics and prioritize. There is a work
> list already. If you want to have a JSDL-WG session then it should be a
> working session to work on already identified items. 
> 
> If you want to have an open-ended session then I think you really should
> have a bof that is unaffiliated with JSDL-WG.
> Andreas
> 
> 
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 15:08:31 +0200, Philipp Wieder
> <philipp.wieder at udo.edu>
> wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>> --
>>   jsdl-wg mailing list
>>   jsdl-wg at ogf.org
>>   http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsdl-wg
>