[lsg-rg] new impetus...?[MESSAGE NOT SCANNED]

[Catlett Charlie]

Richard- I agree.  When we begin to gather application partners for  
early painful experiments I'll make sure to ping this list-
CeC

On Feb 16, 2006, at 4:03 PM, Richard Sinnott wrote:

> I see that this would definitely be in the scope of the life  
> sciences grid (#2 below) since this area is more HPC and large  
> scale genome data sets oriented. I'd be interested in seeing how we  
> could submit some BLAST jobs (protein and nucleotide based) across  
> all of these resources. (We already access and use the NGS in the  
> UK). Other bioinformatics applications and services would also  
> welcomed...
>
> I believe that the healthGrid will have a different flavour (it is  
> much more likely to have very fine grained authorisation  
> requirements and be targeted to health data sets/standards).
>
> R.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Catlett Charlie [mailto:catlett at mcs.anl.gov]
> Sent: Thu 16/02/2006 21:50
> To: Richard Sinnott
> Cc: Catlett Charlie; lsg-rg at ggf.org
> Subject: Re: [lsg-rg] new impetus...?[MESSAGE NOT SCANNED]
>
> I like these suggestions because of the word "real."
>
> A number of us who are managing real grid infrastructure (TeraGrid,
> NAREGI, EGEE, OSG, DEISA, APAC, KGrid, ChinaGrid, Taiwan Nat'l Grid,
> UK NGS) have been working together since SC05 to develop action plans
> to achieve basic interoperation among our grids in four areas within
> the next 6-12 months, sooner where possible.  We chose four areas to
> tackle with existing solutions (not waiting for the next best
> standard)- authentication, data movement, job submission, and
> information services.
>
> At SC05 we identified the areas and wrote draft plans, which are here:
>
> https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?atid=829&group_id=165&func=browse
>
> We held a workshop this week at GGF-16 ("Grid Interoperation NOW")
> and within a few weeks these plans will firm up based on discussions
> this week.
>
> We are looking to partner with a small number of application teams
> who need access to resources in multiple Grids.
>
> Might be a good match (certainly we are in line with your thinking
> below).  The project is here:
>
> forge.ggf.org/projects/mgi  (in the document area is our report from
> SC05)
>
> There is a mailing list as well - if you are interested send email to
> majordomo at ggf.org with "subscribe mgi" in the body of the message
> (MGI = multi grid interop)
>
> A workshop report will be out in a week or two as well.
>
> CeC
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Richard Sinnott wrote:
>
> > Hi Folks,
> > it seems clear that there needs to be some more impetus to this
> > group at GGF.
> >
> > Here are a couple of ideas which we might take forward/discuss. I'd
> > welcome agreements/disagreements - silence is normally golden but
> > not on email lists!!!
> >
> > Split into a healthGrid group and a life science group (here I'm
> > thinking of a bioinformatics Grid)
> >
> > 1. Let us develop a real HealthGrid with folk who are interested in
> > this area (I am one and we have already built various prototype
> > systems accessing and using "representative" patient data sets
> > using existing solutions across the NHS here in Scotland).
> >
> > 2. Let us develop a real life science Grid. We are interested in
> > this and have bioinformatics data Grids and compute Grids already
> > in place.
> >
> > Is this of interest? I think it will help to make this group have a
> > goal. We might want to agree on the scope of these, e.g. whether we
> > just want to look at exploring basic secure services for access to
> > and usage of healthcare data sets, incorporating anonymisation and
> > de-anonymisation scenarios, data linkage perhaps from patient
> > records to imaging data etc.
> >
> > We are already working with advanced authorisation infrastructures
> > using results from GGF standards groups such as AuthZ and ShibGrid.
> > This group (in my humble opinion should be doing these kinds of
> > things) if it is to be "GGF". If it isn't using GGF standards and
> > technologies then one coule argue that it should be handled
> > separately, e.g. through other conferences and workshops.
> >
> > What do folk think?
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > PS I am happy to provide more information on what we are up to at
> > the National e-Science Centre, and am willing to lead/be involved
> > in both of these Grid development activities if there is interest
> > from folk that it should happen. Let's do stuff!
> >
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/lsg-rg/attachments/20060216/f6b1f275/attachment.htm