[OGSA-BES-WG] re-evaluate removal of container model from BESspec appendix

[Maguire_Tom at emc.com]

I'm usually one of the first to suggest removing non-normative text from a
specification.  However, I don't understand why an appendix of this nature
is so objectionable.  Sure it could be a separate info document, but is it
that horrific to have an appendix that describes extensions/utilizations of
a standard information model for containers?

Tom 

_______________________________________________ 
Tom Maguire 
+1(845) 729-4806 

  _____  

From: ogsa-bes-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-bes-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On
Behalf Of Pulsipher_Darren at emc.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:53 PM
To: ogsa-bes-wg at ogf.org
Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG] re-evaluate removal of container model from
BESspec appendix

 

I have not heard a dissenting vote yet. Anyone out there?

 

 

  _____  

From: ogsa-bes-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-bes-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On
Behalf Of Christopher Smith
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 4:03 PM
To: Ian Foster; Ellen Stokes; Andrew Grimshaw; ogsa-bes-wg at ogf.org
Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG] re-evaluate removal of container model from BES
spec appendix

+1

-- Chris


On 27/9/06 07:51, "Ian Foster" <foster at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

I'd like to argue strongly against this. As I said earlier, I think this is
good material and I don't have any objection to it being published as an
OGSA informational document. I just don't think it belongs in a BES
specification, which should contain the minimum information needed to
specify BES.

Ian.

At 09:49 AM 9/27/2006 -0500, Ellen Stokes wrote:

Andrew, 

Per our discussion at the OGSA F2F Sep 14, I'd like the workgroup to
re-evaluate the decision to remove the (general) container model from the
BES specification appendix. 

The intent of this appendix is to provide the container model as an
'informational' appendix so it can be submitted to DMTF as concrete proposal
for inclusion in the DMTF CIM and a context for why a container model is
necessary. 

The inclusion of the model in the BES spec does not imply that OGSA must
implement this CIM container model to implement BES; it is merely an
abstraction for a general container model where BES can provide context for
the need and implementation of a specific container model.  If this point
doesn't come across in the appendix text, I have no problem modifying the
text. 

I know the BES calls are generally scheduled for Thursdays; however, I am
not available this Thursday Sep 28. 
Let me know when this topic can be scheduled as part of BES workgroup call. 

Ellen 


Ellen Stokes
STSM, Grid Computing
TC Member, IBM Academy of Technology
Austin, Texas
tl 678 0552   outside +1 512 838 0552
stokese at us.ibm.com
--
  ogsa-bes-wg mailing list
  ogsa-bes-wg at ogf.org
  http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-bes-wg 

_______________________________________________________________
Ian Foster -- Weblog: http://ianfoster.typepad.com
<http://ianfoster.typepad.com/> <http://ianfoster.typepad.com/> 
Computation Institute: www.ci.uchicago.edu  <http://www.ci.uchicago.edu/>
<http://www.ci.uchicago.edu/>  & www.ci.anl.gov  <http://www.ci.anl.gov/>
<http://www.ci.anl.gov/> 
Argonne: MCS/221, 9700 S. Cass Ave, Argonne, IL 60439
Chicago: Rm 405, 5640 S. Ellis Ave, Chicago, IL 60637
Tel: +1 630 252 4619 --- Globus Alliance: www.globus.org
<http://www.globus.org/> <http://www.globus.org/> 
      
        

  _____  

--
  ogsa-bes-wg mailing list
  ogsa-bes-wg at ogf.org
  http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-bes-wg

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-bes-wg/attachments/20060927/38d41a13/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3654 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-bes-wg/attachments/20060927/38d41a13/attachment.bin