[ogsa-wg] Minor comments on documents

[Treadwell, Jem]

Hmm, it seems to me that they're more likely to be written by other
groups than by OGSA-WG, and OGSA-WG should also be considered a
domain-expert group, so I don't see any reason to call us out
explicitly.  For now I've removed "and their design teams" phrase - does
anyone have any objection to just leaving it like that?  Note also that
in the intro para we do say that OGSA-WG "manages" the overall process.

- Jem


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hiro Kishimoto [mailto:hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:23 AM
> To: Andreas Savva
> Cc: Treadwell, Jem; Djaoui, A (Abdeslem); ogsa-wg
> Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Minor comments on documents
> 
> Hi Andreas, Jem, Abdeslem,
> 
> I agree with Andreas. How about the following?
> 
> "which are written and maintained by the OGSA-WG or the 
> appropriate domain-expert working groups"
> 
> Thanks,
> ----
> Hiro Kishimoto
> 
> Andreas Savva wrote:
> > 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
> >>>
> >>>   
> >>
> >>
> >>  
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > 
>