[ogsa-wg] Minor comments on documents

[Treadwell, Jem]

Hi Abdeslem, my first thought was that that's too low level, but we do
mention design teams elsewhere in the doc, so I've added it to both of
these bullets.

Thanks,

- Jem

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Djaoui, A (Abdeslem)
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 11:20 AM
> To: Treadwell, Jem; Hiro Kishimoto; Steven Newhouse; Tom Maguire
> Cc: ogsa-wg
> Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] Minor comments on documents
> 
> Jem
> 
> After your sentence
> > Service Description documents, which are written and 
> maintained by the 
> > appropriate domain-expert working groups,
> 
> Should you add "or design teams" at the end. I am raising 
> this because for informations services there is no plan to form a WG.
> 
> Abdeslem
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org]On 
> Behalf Of Treadwell, Jem
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 3:21 PM
> To: Hiro Kishimoto; Steven Newhouse; Tom Maguire
> Cc: ogsa-wg
> Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] Minor comments on documents
> 
> 
> Hiro/Steve/Tom,
> 
> My comments also embedded...
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org] 
> On Behalf 
> > Of Hiro Kishimoto
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 9:29 AM
> > To: Steven Newhouse
> > Cc: ogsa-wg
> > Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Minor comments on documents
> >
> > Thanks Steven,
> >
> > My comments inline <HK>.
> > ----
> > Hiro Kishimoto
> >
> > Steven Newhouse wrote:
> > > OGSA WSRF Basic Profile 1.0 (v018 June 13th 2005)
> > >
> > > Page 1: Status of this memo
> > > Is there not a WSRF missing from this opening line?
> > > e.g. '... write normative OGSA services based around the
> > WSRF set of
> > > specifications.'
> >
> > <HK>
> > Good catch! Your text works for me.
> > </HK>
> 
> JT: I'll leave this one for Tom, as he has the pen again right now.
> 
> >
> > > OGSA Roadmap (v010 June 6th 2005)
> > >
> > > Section 2, Point 1, Bullet 3: Should these service description 
> > > documents not be 'owned' by the working group developing
> > the service?
> > > The text implies to me that the OGSA-WG writes them...
> > which I don't
> > > think is the case.
> >
> > <HK>
> > Good point. Let's add something like "domain-expert WG writes this 
> > service description (scenario document) if appropriate."
> > </HK>
> 
> JT: Here's my update, in line (I think!) with Hiro's suggestion:
> 
> * 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.
> 
> * Scenario documents, also written by domain-expert working 
> groups, demonstrate how these services can implement the use 
> cases, using a combination of natural language and UML.
> 
> > > Section 2.2:
> > > Should there not be some statement that OGSA profiles should be 
> > > developed/revised outside the OGSA-WG in theor own WG?
> >
> > <HK>
> > I think they can if their Profile abide by OGSA branding guideline.
> > </HK>
> 
> JT: I inserted this text at what is now line 199, *before* 
> the para beginning "Members of the OGSA-WG": 
> 
> OGSA Recommended and Informational Profiles may be developed 
> either by the OGSA-WG or by domain-expert working groups, but 
> it is important to note that they must adhere to GGF's 
> forthcoming OGSA branding guidelines, which are discussed in 
> section 2.3.
> 
> Let me know if you see any issues with this, as I'll be 
> posting this for final call very soon.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> - Jem 
> 
>