[ogsa-wg] Proposed agenda for June 5th call

[Hiro Kishimoto]

Hi all,

The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on June 5th
Monday from 5pm to 7pm (CDT).

The dial-in number for Monday;
   US:    +1 718 3541071 (New York) or
          +1 408 9616509 (San Jose)
   UK:    +44 (0)207 3655269 (London)
   Japan: +81 (0)3 3570 8225 (Tokyo)
   PIN:  4371991


Screen share service will be provided.
   URL:         http://ogsa.glance.net
   Session key: 0605
See more explanation:
http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html

1) Early discussion (20 min)
         Note taker assignment
         Roll call
         Telecon minutes approval (June 1st)
https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20060601/en/1
         July F2F update if any
         Action Items status review (see the bottom of this email)
         Agenda bashing

2) Information model (Ellen and Fred, 60 min)
         - Information Modeling in OGSA - Position Paper
https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/Info_Model_position_paper
         - BES Information Model
https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/BES_info_model

>    The main issue discussed was the difference between the approach
>    proposed for a (minimal/)general element that can be used to
>    express <name,value> pairs, with the value part being typeless VS
>    extension using an xsd:any and defining a schema.
>    - (See also minutes of GGF17 and April 27.)
>    - There has been experience with both approaches
>    - Difference is relying on explicit typing vs convention; and
>      checking types when validating vs matching time (fail in a subtle
>      fashion)
>    - Discussed whether stronger typing with a schema makes for easier
>      checking. Having an xsd:any doesn't help as much as people might
>      think for checking types; matching might still fail later.
>    - It is still necessary to define conventions. Need to define a set
>      of <name,value> conventions
>    - Andrew's issue is whether the value (in (<name,value>) is typed.
>      - Type checking information is needed somewhere; and wouldn't
>        want to have it only in the code

>   - Jay will contact Platform (Chris Smith) and Condor (Miron Livny)
>     to get feedback on pros / cons of the two rendering approaches
>     - Jay is following up. He has a meeting (6/12) with Miron and will
>       arrange to get some feedback; but probably not by next call.
> 
>   - Darren/Andreas will take the Modeling position paper and discuss
>     it within the JSDL-WG as well From April 24 call
>     - No JSDL call yet. 

3) Wrap up (10 min)
         AOB

<*NEXT CALL*>
June 8 (Thu):  EMS scenarios (Steven and Andreas)
June 12 (Mon): CDDLM & EMS (Jun and Hiro)
June 15 (Thu): Security & BSP Public Comments review (Frank and Takuya)
                Architecture & Glossary 1.5 (Andreas and Jem)
June 19 (Mon): Information model (Ellen and Fred)
                Roadmap 1.1 (Hiro, ChrisJ, and Jem)
June 22 (Thu): EMS scenarios (Steven and Andreas)
June 26 (Mon): Security & BSP Public Comments review (Frank and Takuya)
                CDDLM & EMS (Jun and Hiro)

<*ACTION ITEMS*>
 From May 22 call
- Jay will contact Platform (Chris Smith) and Condor (Miron Livny)
   to get feedback on pros / cons of the two rendering approaches
- Darren/Andreas will take the Modeling position paper and
   discuss it within the JSDL-WG as well

 From April 5 F2F meeting
- Marvin to send e-mail that explains concerns on compliance suite
   by GGF & EGA.

Deferred
- Frank to write up and send to the list a one page summary of
   the authorization call-out proposal.
   (April 24 call, postpone until June 14)
- Jay check and find out relatively small funding to Globus
   to develop document on their security work (April 6 F2F)
- Hiro to schedule a discussion in the OGSA F2F after the
   converged specs drafts are released to discuss which sets of
   specs to use within OGSA.  (April 4 F2F)
-- 
Hiro Kishimoto