[ogsa-wg] Minor comments on documents

[Andreas Savva]

Jem, Abdeslem

I think it's inappropriate to mention design teams in this context, 
since they do not have a formal role. The document itself would be 
labelled as the output of the working group, not of the design team.

Treadwell, Jem wrote:

>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 
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>