[jsdl-wg] Fwd: JSDL 2.0 BOF?

[alexander.papaspyrou at tu-dortmund.de]

Another thing I could think of is some kind of harmonization (maybe even adoption) between Activity Instance and the BES Activity within BES 1.1/2.0.

-Alexander

Am 30.09.2010 um 04:21 schrieb Andreas Savva:

> Andrew,
> 
> JSDL-WG has been discussing seriously, as far as I am concerned, for the  
> last couple of OGFs what to do once the Activity specification is  
> done--now in PC so that's ok. There is a fairly well understood set of  
> next steps. I'll outline the top two here:
> 
> 1. SPMD 2.0
>   - Start with an experience document for SPMD 1.0 and use the  
> requirements generated for SPMD 2.0
>   - Morris has the most comprehensive set of requirements, which he  
> presented to JSDL-WG last March. One can say that there is some work along  
> this path already, albeit very slowly. We need some additional involvement.
>   - I'll take the blame for not starting the experience document over the  
> summer. Busy with real work (tm).
> 
> 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.
>   - Requires cooperation with BES-WG since we have to narrow down to the  
> set useful for job submission
>   - GFD.137 outlines using GLUE and XPath/XQuery for resource  
> requirements. Personally I *don't care* how requirements are expressed as  
> long as there is sufficient consensus. This usually means that there are  
> people willing to work on something...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Do you have other ideas on what should be at the top of list?
> 
> Andreas
> 
> 
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:19:48 +0900, Andreas Savva  
> <andreas.savva at jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
>> [Posting on behalf of Andrew]
>> 
>> ------- Forwarded message -------
>> From: "Andrew Grimshaw" <grimshaw at virginia.edu>
>> To: "Andreas Savva" <andreas.savva at jp.fujitsu.com>, jsdl-wg at ogr.org
>> Cc: "'Mark Morgan'" <mmm2a at virginia.edu>, "'Morris Riedel'"
>> <m.riedel at fz-juelich.de>
>> Subject: JSDL 2.0 BOF?
>> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:09:53 +0900
>> 
>> 
>> Andreas,
>> 
>> I’d really like to have a JSDL 2.0 BOF/WG meeting in Brussels to  
>> seriously
>> start looking at how to upgrade JSDL to accommodate lessons learned in
>> use. I’m sure you all have discussed this. Is there a plan on how to
>> proceed? Or can I work with anybody on moving forward? JSDL has been very
>> successful – but we need to keep up with new requirements of others will
>> define their own specs.
>> 
>> A
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/20100930/fa145102/attachment.bin