[jsdl-wg] JSDL 2.0 BOF?

Sat Oct 2 21:21:20 CDT 2010

Hi Philipp,

We haven't had a call recently so I guess it is to be expected that people
might not share the same understanding of the state of the group. Allow me
to outline where I think the group is.

There is a list of issues, which have been discussed over the last few
OGFs and narrowed down at the last OGF to the specific work items I
described in the original reply to Andrew.

Andrew mentioned PGI-WG requirements. We've engaged with PGI-WG for more
than a year and their requirements are a major driver: Morris and I had an
informal discussion at OGF27 (Banff); he gave a detailed presentation
illustrated with schema examples at OGF28 (Munich); we narrowed down to the
specific work items mentioned previously at OGF29 (Chicago). At OGF29
Andrew's group was also represented. Mark gave a presentation on their JSDL
experiences and there seemed to be agreement on the next steps. 

So I find it difficult to understand why we should go back to talking
about issues and prioritizing. We should start working on specific
deliverables. This is not to say that we are not open to hearing about new
issues or proposals; we have a tracker to log stuff and discuss them in due
course. But we are well past the planning phase at the moment. If we reset
every time someone comes along with a new idea nothing will get done.

I did not say JSDL 2 is out of scope of the WG. I said we are taking an
incremental approach to deliver it. If there is sufficient disagreement
with this approach then I suggested that a bof should be held.

Take care,
Andreas

On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:01:57 +0200, Philipp Wieder
<philipp.wieder at udo.edu>
wrote:
> 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
>>

-- 
Andreas Savva
Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd.