[ogsa-naming-wg] Minutes and next meeting

[Frank Siebenlist]

Action item for Andrew: add Frank to ws-naming project memberlist.

-Frank.

Andrew Grimshaw wrote:
> All,
>
> Attached are the minutes from today's teleconference. Minutes are also on
> gridforge.
>
> The next teleconference is Tuesday, May 2, at 11AM Eastern.
>
> The dial in is:
>
> Toll Free:  866-231-9615
>
> Long Distance: 713-576-2028
>
> Participant Code: 255921
>
>  
>
> Glance will be provided at ogsa.glance.net
>
>  
>
> Agenda:
>
>  
>
> Agenda bashing
>
> Approve minutes
>
> Continue discussion of WS-Naming modifications to make consistent with draft
> requirements document.
>
> Go through tracker
>
>  
>
> A
>
>  
>
> Andrew Grimshaw
>
> Professor of Computer Science
>
> University of Virginia
>
> 434-982-2204
>
> grimshaw at cs.virginia.edu
>
>  
>
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> OGSA Naming Telecon -- 28 April 2006
>
> Attendees
> ---------------
> 	Mark Morgan (minutes)
> 	Andrew Grimshaw
> 	Frank Siebenlist
> 	Dave Snelling
> 	Mike Behrens
> 	Chris Jordan
>
>
> Agenda
> -----------
> 	* 5 minutes -- agenda bashing
> 	* 30 minutes -- Discuss draft requirements document
> 	* 30 minutes -- Discuss approval of DRAFT WS-Names document to send to GFSG for GFSG approval.
> 	* 25 minutes -- Attempt to come to closure on working group consensus regarding WS-Directory, RNS.
>
> * Requirements Document
> 	- pointer to the pieces that Dave and Frank believe need to be there
> 	- highlights the properties that need to be addressed
> 	- a few other use cases that motivate naming
> 		-- Migration and recovery
> 		-- Should be added to the document
> 	- Overall perspective comment by Andrew
> 		-- Taking this document as a document for requirements and suggestions for how those requirements might be filled, it's good.  Andrew has 
> 		   identified 1-to-1 maps between that document and what WS-Naming already has and he'll point those out as we go.
> 	- Frank wants to revisit the "names" of elements in the current document
> 	- 5.1 -- Unambiguous Web Service Endpoint Profile
> 		-- Good profile
> 		-- WS-Names does not address this at all because the authors assumed this but it should probably be added
> 		-- Should this profile be a product of the OGSA-Naming working group
> 			> Not against this, esp. if Dave Snelling and Frank want to take the lead on it.
> 	- 5.2 -- Web Service Endpoint Name Specification
> 		-- This is exactly what the AbstractName component of WS-Names is (according to Andrew).
> 			> Can we meet this reqiurement by WS-Name's AbstractName
> 			> We say that the endpoint name is an IRI and that the EPR minter has to adhere to 5.1
> 			> Where does the IRI go in the "to" field
> 				--- Yes, that's indicated in the 5.3
> 			> This section says nothing about Unique in Space and Time
> 			> Can you use this IRI to compare?
> 			> Is there any reason why what we call AbstractName in WS-Naming is any different from this IRI?
> 				--- With a few additional words in the spec (about how the minter of the EPR has to adhere to 5.1), then there is a match.
> 	- 5.3 -- Endpoint Address Identifier Profile
> 		-- We don't have a problem with this one as long as it's clear that the address and whatever we call the abstractname are not equivalent
> 			> they might be the same element, but don't have to be.
> 			> if my address field adheres to 5.2, and also happens to be sufficient for 5.1, then it can be in the address field, and it can be
> 			> additionally placed in the metadata
> 		- Could see choosing to do this, but not making it a requirement
> 		- We still need to talk about this
> 	- 5.4 -- Resolution Specification
> 		- provide a service that maps an IRI to an EPR
> 		- similar to, but not the same as the WS-Naming resolution function
> 		- if we refer to 5.1 and change the name of the resolution function to resolve, and change the text to only talk about returning EPRs, then we
> 		  have consensus that this makes 5.4 and WS-Naming equivalent.
> 	- 5.4.2 -- Renewable Reference Interface
> 		- The two resolve functions should be two seperate port types.
>
> * RNS
> 	- Mark to send Manuel requirements on hierarchical naming
> 	- GFSG had call with chairs and all to try and get requirements and trying to reduce the RNS draft down to basically minimal set of functionallity that
> 	  that provides something similar to what WS-Directory provides.
>
> Action Items
> -------------------
> 	* Mark to add Frank's comments as trackers/tracker comments
> 	* Frank agrees that he and Dave Snelling will take on the responsibility of authoring the "Unambiguous Web Service Endpoint Profile"
> 	* Frank and Dave to write profile document for section 5.3
> 	* Mark Morgan to change spec. with a few words indicating that the minter of an EPR following 5.1 produces an abstractname that makes 5.2 and 
> 	  WS-Naming abstract names equivalent.
> 	* Change spec so that text about resolve refers to 5.1 document and that it returns an EPR (not a WS-Name), then change name to "eprResolve"
> 	* Mark Morgan to change naming document so that the two resolve port types should be in seperate port types.  And change the name to "renew".
> 	  To satisfy all parties, we also need to add an optional EPR to the eprResolve port type.  As long as the spec. makes it clear what the purposes of
> 	  the optional EPR and that the client may have to loop a few times to deal with this.
> 	* Andrew to send out to list an attempt to get a call before GGF-Tokyo
> 		-- Next agenda items to approve minutes and to finish up discussion -- also to go through tracker comments.
>   

-- 
Frank Siebenlist               franks at mcs.anl.gov
The Globus Alliance - Argonne National Laboratory