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

Thu Sep 28 07:58:29 CDT 2006

This appendix needs to have terminology addressed.  Appendix J uses the term
container which is not used anywhere else in the specification; this creates
a bit of a semantic chasm that needs to be bridged. Given the extensive use
of the container terminology I believe a fair bit of editing would be
necessary to make the appendix consistent with the rest of the
specification.  This would necessitate another round of detailed reviews of
the specification by the WG.  I think it comes down to a question of timing
wrt included or not.  
Sorry if I have offended sensibilities with this note....

Tom

_______________________________________________
Tom Maguire
+1(845) 729-4806

-----Original Message-----
From: Hiro Kishimoto [mailto:hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 9:47 PM
To: Maguire, Tom
Cc: Pulsipher, Darren; ogsa-bes-wg at ogf.org
Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG] re-evaluate removal of container model from
BESspec appendix

Hi all,

I would keep this informative appendix in the BES spec.
As Ellen explained, this appendix is an important tool to ask
DMTF to extend/adjust their CIM model to meet BES needs.

Thus it will be the first success example of OGSA
information/data modeling works by healthy collaboration
between OGF and DMTF.

Since this appendix is *informative*, the overview section
should read:

> The Container Model describes the managed objects and their
> relationships for defining the execution environment for activities in a
> grid. The CIMv2.10 final schema is the foundation for the development of
> this model. It is expected that this model will be folded into CIMv2.12
> preliminary. This appendix is informative.

Thanks,
----
Hiro Kishimoto

Maguire_Tom at emc.com wrote:
> 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
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --
>   ogsa-bes-wg mailing list
>   ogsa-bes-wg at ogf.org
>   http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-bes-wg

-------------- 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/20060928/a795a2d3/attachment.bin 