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

Thu Sep 28 08:22:30 CDT 2006

Hi Tom,

Appendix J is just 3 pages and Ellen already commit to update this.
I also can join review team. Thanks,
----
Hiro Kishimoto

Maguire_Tom at emc.com wrote:
> 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
> 