[ogsa-bes-wg] Re: [jsdl-wg] Questions and potential changes to JSDL, as seen from HPC Profile point-of-view

[Marvin Theimer]

-----Original Message-----
From: Donal K. Fellows [mailto:donal.k.fellows at manchester.ac.uk] 
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 3:38 PM
To: JSDL Working Group; ogsa-bes-wg at ggf.org
Cc: Marvin Theimer; Ed Lassettre; Ming Xu (WINDOWS)
Subject: Re: [ogsa-bes-wg] Re: [jsdl-wg] Questions and potential changes
to JSDL, as seen from HPC Profile point-of-view

Christopher Smith wrote:
> I think you've definitely touched on the problem with using the CIM
model,
> but I have to imagine that the people discussing these issues in the
DMTF
> working groups have faced exactly the same issue as we're seeing, and
the
> result is that they went for this simple approach. So we can go
through the
> same exercise they did, perhaps with a chance that we arrive at a
different
> approach which allows us more flexibility, but I'm guessing we'd
arrive at
> the same place. How do we keep up (in standardization) with the fast
> changing world around us? I for one want to make sure that when
someone asks
> me for a particular OS or processor type, that I can understand the
"token"
> that I'm given.

I'm not at all convinced that they've got sufficiently similar terms of
reference to us for them to have hit the same problem. If your problem
domain is "describe what is out there in a format compatible with big
iron databases" then CIM does that nicely. OTOH, it would be nice if
there was a group in the DMTF that was prepared to work on this, not
just because that would take the work out of our hands :-) but also
because it is introducing a level of semantic richness that will stand
the CIM model in good stead.

Though I'm not sure if most CPU and OS designers are actually good
enough to satisfy the requirements of a true partial order over their
components. I know both groups too well to trust them to get that right;
CPU designers are too keen on "cute" hacks and OS designers tend to not
believe just how important keeping things *really* compatible is...

If we (GGF) do the subsumption ordering ourselves, we need to check
whether our process can take such regular publication of recommendation
track documents. It seemed rather slow the last time we tried. :-\
(Also, perhaps we'd want to do this outside of the JSDL activity; it's
only tangentially related at best.)

Donal.

[MARVIN] Is there a pragmatic "next step" to take to try to solve this
dilemma?  If the main problem you see is that GGF will need to define a
somewhat different document publication process for things like
subsumption specs then that's at least something that is in our (meaning
GGF's) control.


Marvin.