[ogsa-rss-wg] OGSA-RSS Agenda Topic

[Andreas Savva]

I have now finished uploading material from last week's OGSA F2F to
gridforge. Please look at two documents in particular:
https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/EMS_Roadmap_notes/en/1
https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/ogsa-f2f-minutes-20060118-am/en/1

Even though there were no RSS-WG representatives at the F2F the EMS
design team also discussed EPS and CSG as part of the EMS Roadmap
session. Two *suggestions* came out of that session and should be
discussed at a future joint call or perhaps during a joint session at
GGF16. I think they fit in the agenda that Donal proposed below.

>From the minutes:
- Separation of EPS and CSG is not clearly required – suggest to RSS to
remove CSG and let them make the call. And clearly define the added
value of CSG.
- EPS returns an ordered (by policy) list of (Activity Execution
Candidates: <JSDL doc; EPR or path of BES container; rank (optional,
numeric, extensible), CDL, EPR to deployment service, ...>.

Folder url:
https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewCategory.php?group_id=42&category_id=1149&filtertype=basic

Andreas

Donal K. Fellows wrote:
> Mathias Dalheimer wrote:
>> As Philipp already stated: This is a twofold presentation. The
>> architecture topics are covered in GSA. In this presentation, they
>> will give us more information about their interfaces and interaction.
>> I think this will take approx. 25 minutes.
>>
>> But nevertheless, we have a timing problem. Next time, we should ask
>> for two sessions. Can you tell me which specific topics you want to
>> discuss? Then I can volunteer to create an agenda. The agenda so far
>> is (just collecting, no order intended):
>>
>> (1) Service description milestone discussion
>> (2) Presentation: Scheduler Interfaces in the ASKALON Grid Environment
>> (3) Candidate Ordering Language discussion
> 
> I think the presentation has to go at the end. We're already one GGF
> behind our schedule (from our charter) and that means we *really* need
> to get on with it. Presentations to us are not our core activity; we're
> a working group and not a research group. As such, we can only really
> have time for show-and-tell stuff if we've covered our core business
> first. I'm sorry to be hard on this, but I think it's part of being a
> co-chair.
> 
> As for agenda, I think we've got quite a few things to discuss. I hope
> to have an abstract specification of a CSG (using my idea of CSG as
> itself an abstract concept) done by the time we go to Athens, and that
> should stimulate quite a bit of discussion. We then need to discuss:
> 
>  * Whether splitting CSG/EPS the way I'm thinking of is a good idea.
> 
>  * Ways of concretizing into WSRF, WS-Transfer (et al) and/or REST.
>    Especially, how many of these do we need to do?
> 
>  * What is the nature of a candidate document? This is *very* important
>    and I'm not convinced any more that at the abstract level we can
>    mandate WS-Agreement since that spec is bound tightly to WSRF.
> 
>  * Possibly some things about the COL, but my idea there is that that is
>    just a language that can be plugged in in an extensibility point in
>    the core specification, and not that it is the only possible thing.
> 
> I also expect many of these discussions to take longer than I expect. OK
> that sounds backwards, but it certainly fits my experience of standards
> work... :-/
> 
> Donal.
> 

-- 
Andreas Savva
Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd