[jsdl-wg] JSDL 2.0 BOF?

Mon Oct 4 06:20:21 CDT 2010

All,

the main question is whether there is enough fodder for calling something 2.0. Since JSDL is largely extension-based, I feel that it will be difficult to justify this (unless there are really urgent larger changes in the current core spec)...

Best,
Alexander

Am 03.10.2010 um 04:21 schrieb Andreas Savva:

> 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.
> --
>  jsdl-wg mailing list
>  jsdl-wg at ogf.org
>  http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsdl-wg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4678 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/jsdl-wg/attachments/20101004/3f181759/attachment.bin 