[ogsa-wg] Apologies For Absence (update to glossary terms)
Treadwell, Jem
jem.treadwell at hp.com
Tue Oct 31 09:38:06 CST 2006
Paul/Bob, thanks for your comments! On Monday's call we did consider Paul's suggestion of not defining enterprise, but for the time being we agreed to propose the definitions below, which are slightly modified from the discussion document I posted yesterday.
I've uploaded an update to the discussion document - it's at http://tinyurl.com/shbss.
The e-science definition was agreed, and I've moved it into my working copy of the Glossary (not yet uploaded).
With a bit more diligence in checking how the phrases are used I discovered that "enterprise computing" is actually *not* used in the EGA documents, so technically it's unnecessary. However, I did use it in the proposal for enterprise, and we agreed to leave it in. It's a candidate for removal if it turns out to be too controversial, though :0)
I removed the CRM & ERP examples from "enterprise computing", but "enterprise application" is defined and sub-defined later - these terms were already in the EGA glossary. You can find them in the discussion document, but these are for discussion in a later episode.
So here are the remaining two definitions that we did discuss - I hope these are general enough to be acceptable.
Enterprise:
In common use, a business organization.
Within OGSA and the EGA Reference Model the term is applied to any organization whose IT facilities and operations follow enterprise computing practices, even if the organization does not have a literal business focus.
Enterprise computing:
Computing to support the operation of an enterprise or other organization. Characteristics typically include some subset of the following:
* Concentration of IT resources into one or more data centers.
* Operation of enterprise applications.
* Emphasis on satisfying customer expectations through the use of SLOs.
* The need to be able to deploy and re-deploy resources rapidly in response to business changes.
* Attention to maximizing value through effective use of resources, and often by assigning operating costs to customer organizations such as business units or departments.
Notes:
- As I'm not writing in HTML here I can't show the italics, but "enterprise applications" and others are references to other definitions.
- We will probably need to change the phrase "EGA Reference Model" at some point, and that is noted as a comment in the document.
- Jem
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ogsa-wg-bounces at ogf.org
> [mailto:ogsa-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of Natale, Bob
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 5:22 PM
> To: ogsa-wg WG
> Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Apologies For Absence
>
> Hi,
>
> For the record, Paul's recommendation below is fine with me
> -- and I am also happy with the current (revised) definition
> of "Enterprise". I definitely agree with Paul that we should
> not need to define such a broad and common term, unless we
> were using it in some particularly distinct way.
>
> Cheers,
> BobN
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ogsa-wg-bounces at ogf.org
> [mailto:ogsa-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of Strong, Paul
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 4:58 PM
> To: ogsa-wg WG
> Subject: [ogsa-wg] Apologies For Absence
>
> All,
>
> Am tied up this PM.
>
> My one comment on the glossary front would be to urge us not
> to try and define the term Enterprise. It is both too
> commonly used and too broad to be worth the effort. We'll be
> forever having the "this is what *we* mean by Enterprise"
> discussion if we diverge from the common understanding.
> Let's stick to defining compound terms like Enterprise Grid
> and maybe Enterprise Computing which we can to some degree
> make our own.
>
> Just my shiny tuppence... :o)
>
> Cheers
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ogsa-wg-bounces at ogf.org
> [mailto:ogsa-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of Treadwell, Jem
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 1:33 PM
> To: ogsa-wg WG
> Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Glossary terms: enterprise,enterprise
> computing and e-Science
>
> Hi, thanks for all the comments. As there were a couple of
> separate threads I've combined them into a single summary below.
>
> I've uploaded a new version of the discussion document to
> http://tinyurl.com/ygd6mm. This is for (brief) discussion on
> today's call, and I'll send out an update tomorrow for those
> interested.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Jem
>
>
> ====== Donal Fellows =========
>
> > From: Donal K. Fellows
> > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 5:16 AM
> > To: 'ogsa-wg WG'
> > Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Glossary terms: enterprise, enterprise
> > computing and e-Science
> >
> > Toshiyuki Nakata wrote:
> > > How about numerically intensive applications used in the
> > enterprises
> > > such as Cirucuit simulation, financial calculations such as
> > Risk analysis?
> >
> > Also, heavy-duty floating-point simulation codes (of the
> general sort
> > often associated with e-Science) are very useful for many fields of
> > engineering. They also have extensive requirements for things like
> > visualization and steering.
> >
> > Looks to me like almost anything can be called "Enterprise Grid
> > Computing" and so the term isn't helping us understand what
> is going
> > on from a Grid perspective. Glossaries definitely should not be
> > muddying the waters, whatever else they do.
> >
> > The way I've seen the term "Enterprise Grid Computing"
> > actually used in presentations though is much more
> > restrictive: "Managed Datacenter Grid Computing" would
> probably be an
> > accurate characterization. Were we to use that term, it would leave
> > the EGC term free to mean "all grid computing that is supporting an
> > enterprise", of which MDGC is an important sub-category. In doing
> > that, it would make it far easier to reach out to other kinds of
> > enterprises where the major grid challenges are not in datacenter
> > management; one of the things I hear from talking to people who
> > consider themselves to be working on a "Mobile Grid" is
> that "GGF/OGSA
> > only deals with HPC and datacenters" which I know to be not true -
> > those are merely areas that have been focussed on initially.
> >
> > Donal (I know it's OGF now, but they don't.)
> > --
>
> ====== Toshi Nakata =============
>
> Hi:
> > In EGR-RG, we decided that it would become very difficult to
>
> Sorry 'decided' is too strong a word.
> When the RG began it had been too difficult to agree on so
> the general concensus was to look into see what applications
> are deployed in Enteprises (Grids).
>
> Best Regards
>
> Toshi
>
> Hello:
> I have not been active in OGSA but, I do participate in
> EGR-RG (Enterprise Grid Requirements) RG so my two cents' comments.
>
> > · Operation of enterprise applications such as CRM and ERP.
>
> How about numerically intensive applications used in the
> enterprises such as Cirucuit simulation, financial
> calculations such as Risk analysis?
>
> In EGR-RG, we decided that it would become very difficult to
> draw a line, so have made no definitions on the bounds of
> applications themselves Best Regards Toshi
> -----
> Toshiyuki Nakata 中田 登志之
> Executive Chief Engineer, Central Research Lab. NEC 1753,
> Shimonumabe, Nakahara-Ku, Kawasaki,Kanagawa 211-8666,Japan
> Tel +81-44-431-7653 (NEC Internal 22-60035) Fax
> +81-44-431-7609 (NEC Internal 22-60509)
>
> ============ Hiro Kishimoto ============
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hiro Kishimoto [mailto:hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 6:05 PM
> > To: Strong, Paul
> > Cc: Natale, Bob; Treadwell, Jem; ogsa-wg WG
> > Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Glossary terms: enterprise, enterprise
> > computing and e-Science
> >
> > Hi Jem, Bob, and Paul,
> >
> > I understand Bob's concern but Jem's proposal was based on the
> > thoughts to align our glossary with OGF's intention/direction.
> > Given that OGF has three major functions: eScience, Enterprise and
> > Standards (http://www.ogf.org/gf/group_info/areasgroups.php),
> > we would like to define enterprise and eScience somewhat different
> > even thought they have many similarities.
> >
> > For me, Bob's definition of enterprise seems to be too general and
> > thus covers eScience also.
> >
> > Just my 2 cents,
> > ----
> > Hiro Kishimoto
>
> ============ Paul Strong ==============
>
> > Strong, Paul wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe that, wherever possible, glossaries should not seek to
> > > redefine commonly used terms or make them more specific than their
> > > common use. Especially when those terms are single words :o) I
> > > would leave ‘enterprise’ more or less as per Bob’s suggestion, or
> > > perhaps direct the reader to OED or Webster’s dictionary –
> > one common
> > > definition of ‘Enterprise’ being “A business organization”.
> > This is
> > > perfectly OK, as are the other definitions. This can
> remain vague.
> > >
> > > What matters are terms such as Enterprise Grid where we own the
> > > definition and its use within our document set. The
> notion that we
> > > (the EGA) originally wanted to convey with respect to Enterprise
> > > Grids, and indeed Enterprise Computing, is that of a set of
> > > services/applications and an infrastructure that is in some sense
> > > “owned” by a business entity – an enterprise. One could thus see
> > > Enterprise Grids as an evolution/instantiation of Enterprise
> > > Computing.
> > >
> > > In many ways Enterprise Computing is perhaps not a useful
> > term. The
> > > intent was to provide a bucket for all types of IT
> service (compute
> > > intensive, transactional, externally facing, internally
> > facing etc.)
> > > within an enterprise, to capture the notion that computing
> > within an
> > > enterprise is tied to the objectives of the enterprise
> and that the
> > > services delivered by the enterprise are thus subject to
> > service level
> > > objectives that extend beyond the qualitative to the quantitative.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Paul
>
> ============ Bob Natale ===============
>
> > > From: ogsa-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Natale, Bob Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006
> 8:36 AM To:
> > > Treadwell, Jem Cc: ogsa-wg WG Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Glossary
> terms:
> > > enterprise,enterprise computing and e-Science
> > >
> > > Hi Jem,
> > >
> > > Would a broader definition of "Enterprise" be acceptable?
> > >
> > > A quick cut at what I have in mind:
> > >
> > > "Enterprise:
> > >
> > > A set of organizational entities bound by a common
> > hierarchy and whose
> > > individual missions support a common purpose."
> > >
> > > The main objective I have in mind is to remove the
> > "commercial" focus
> > > -- e.g., we often refer to "Enterprise" services and
> > management with
> > > respect to the US DoD's Global Information Grid.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > BobN
>
> ============= Jem Treadwell ==============
>
> > > From: ogsa-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Treadwell, Jem Sent: Wednesday, October 25,
> 2006 11:17 AM
> > > To: ogsa-wg WG Subject: [ogsa-wg] Glossary terms:
> > > enterprise,enterprise computing and e-Science
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Per Monday's call I've updated the glossary working
> > document with the
> > > three definitions we discussed - enterprise, enterprise
> > computing, and
> > > e-Science. The working document is at http://tinyurl.com/yb5kp2.
> > >
> > > All three definitions are below - note that enterprise is
> > as agreed on
> > > the call, I developed the enterprise computing defintion
> > based on the
> > > discussion (and please do note the final sentence that
> begins "Note
> > > that..."), and e-Science is abbreviated from the intro in
> > wikipedia.
> > > Also note that the terms in italics also have entries in
> > the glossary,
> > > and don't need to be spelled out here.
> > >
> > > If you have any comments please let me know; otherwise I'll
> > move these
> > > to the main draft document before next Monday's call.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > - Jem
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Enterprise:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > An organization whose primary activities are commercial.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Enterprise computing:
> > >
> > > Computing to support the operation of an enterprise.
> > Characteristics typically include:
> > >
> > > * Concentration of IT resources into one or more large-scale data
> > > centers.
> > >
> > > * Operation of enterprise applications such as CRM and ERP.
> > >
> > > * Emphasis on satisfying customer expectations through the use of
> > > SLOs.
> > >
> > > * The need to be able to deploy and re-deploy
> > resources rapidly in response to business changes.
> > >
> > > * Attention to profitable operation by optimizing resource
> > > utilization and by assigning operating costs to business units.
> > >
> > > Note that many of these characteristics can also be found in
> > > non‑enterprise domains.
> > >
> > > e-Science:
> > >
> > > Computationally intensive science that is carried out in highly
> > > distributed network environments, or science that uses
> immense data
> > > sets that require grid computing.
> > >
> > > For more information see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Science.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > Jem Treadwell Hewlett-Packard Company 6000 Irwin Road Mount
> > Laurel, NJ
> > > 08054
> > >
> > > Phone:
> > >
> > > 856-638-6021
> > >
> > > Fax:
> > >
> > > 856-638-6190
> > >
> > > E-mail:
> > >
> > > Jem.Treadwell at hp.com <mailto:Jem.Treadwell at hp.com>
> > >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > -- ogsa-wg mailing list ogsa-wg at ogf.org
> > > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-wg
> >
> >
> --
> ogsa-wg mailing list
> ogsa-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-wg
> --
> ogsa-wg mailing list
> ogsa-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-wg
> --
> ogsa-wg mailing list
> ogsa-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-wg
>
More information about the ogsa-wg
mailing list