[ogsa-rss-bof] Charter BoF report

[Hiro Kishimoto]

Hi Mathias and Donal,

 > I agree, "affiliated groups" fits better. Maybe Hiro can also state
 > his oppinion.

Since all WG/RG stand on an equal footing, I prefer and am using "fellow
WG."

In addition to this, I have two minor comments on proposed charter.

(1) service description document
"OGSA-RSS WG will provide it to OGSA-WG" sounds like one-way
conversation. I prefer something like.

"OGSA-RSS WG will provide and have a joint review of a service
description."

(2) The latest 7 question has an OGSA-WG relation query as a part of
Question 4.

I've updated Question 4. However, since your answer has already covered
this issue, no modification is necessary.

My edits is in attached document, please have a look.

Thanks,
----
Hiro Kishimoto

Mathias Dalheimer wrote:
> Hi again!
> 
> Donal K. Fellows wrote:
> 
>> Remaining issues as I see them.
>>
>>  1: Are we correct in saying "OGSA-WG and its subgroups" or should we
>>     say "OGSA-WG and its affiliated groups"? To me, "subgroups" implies
>>     that we believe that there is a strong relationship there, when I
>>     think that the truth is closer to being a "confederation of the
>>     willing". This is one to check with Hiro.
> 
> I agree, "affiliated groups" fits better. Maybe Hiro can also state his 
> oppinion.
> 
>>  2: We do not want our milestones to imply that we may not start on our
>>     main deliverables until GGF15! :^) Best if we reworded that to say
>>     instead that we will have started on our major deliverables by then.
> 
> I think this is an important topic and would like to have oppinions by 
> others on the list as well. My oppinion is:
> 
> We now have to evaluate the material of GSA and build upon this to write 
> our service description (*). For me, the service description is very 
> important. The OGSA Roadmap document (*) states:
> 
> "Service Description documents, which are written and maintained by the 
> appropriate domain-expert working groups, describe the services in the 
> area in natural language, listing the interfaces and operations defined 
> by each service."
> 
> So, this is basically the foundation upon which we will define the 
> services. From my point of view, we should use the time until GGF15 to 
> agree upon the service description. This might also involve to check 
> whether we can satisfy all requirements from our own schedulers etc. The 
> deliverables will then specify the services further. So, I think the 
> service description has several functions:
> 
> (1) Clarify how we expect the services behave.
> (2) Clarify the relation to other OGSA services, e.g. the Information 
> Service.
> (3) Provides an instrument for us to clarify what we want to do.
> 
> Once we have the service description, a lot of important work is already 
> done. Basically, we are starting to work on the main deliverables, as we 
> will be able to reuse the content. Formally, I don't think it makes 
> sense to start with the main deliverables now.
> 
> But, nevertheless, we should state more clearly what we expect the 
> service description to be (maybe I am wrong with my understanding). I 
> tried to add an additional scentence to the charter, please find it 
> attached.
> 
> Have a nice weekend,
> Mathias
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (*) links to the documents on gridforge:
> - Use-cases: 
> https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewCategory.php?group_id=133&category_id=714 
> 
> - Requirements document draft:
> https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/gsa-rg/document/GSA-Requirements/en/1
> - OGSA Roadmap:
> https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-roadmap/en/15 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: draft-ggf-ogsa-rss-charter-2-hiro.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 237056 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-rss-bof/attachments/20050710/ddaac9f4/attachment.doc