[ogsa-wg] EMS Architecture Scenarios v1.0+

[Michel Drescher]

Hiro, Steve,

I'm all in for that.

Cheers,
Michel


Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
> Hi Steven and Michel,
> 
>>> This would be a useful reference for many groups and help to show how
>>> the work going on in individual WGs fits together.
>>
>> I agree to that. It would also actually help keeping scope creep out
>> of the involved Working Groups.
> 
> Sound great. Could we have some time to discuss this topic at the F2F?
> Does Tuesday evening (e.g. 5:30-6pm) work for you guys?
> 
> Thanks,
> ----
> Hiro Kishimoto
> 
> -------- Original Message  --------
> Subject: Re:[ogsa-wg] EMS Architecture Scenarios v1.0+
> From: Michel Drescher <Michel.Drescher at uk.fujitsu.com>
> To: Steven Newhouse <Steven.Newhouse at microsoft.com>
> Cc: "ogsa-wg at ogf.org" <ogsa-wg at ogf.org>
> Date: 2007/08/09 18:53
> 
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> Steven Newhouse wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Generally, having scenarios in the current version of the document
>>> using specs that are not developing and/or not going to be adopted is
>>> a concern to me. There is IMHO a clear benefit in having these
>>> sequence diagrams to inform other groups & incorporate their thinking
>>> into a single cohesive document. This should be one of our principals
>>> for future versions – not to expand into a massive sequence diagram
>>> repository but to keep a narrow focus on incremental scenarios in the
>>> EMS space. This would be a useful reference for many groups and help
>>> to show how the work going on in individual WGs fits together.
>>
>> I agree to that. It would also actually help keeping scope creep out
>> of the
>> involved Working Groups.
>>
>> I am not a UML guy, but I was wondering whether it is possible to
>> draw/incorporate some sort of interface boundary between the
>> "umbrella" EPS
>> sequence diagrams, and the sequence diagrams that clearly belong to
>> the WGs
>> that solve a specific problem, i.e. OGSA-DMI, OGSA-BES, OGSA-RSS (which
>> actually covers two topics w/ interfaces - CSG and EPS). This would vice
>> versa keep the scope of EMS to some sort of "glue" sticking all the
>> individual parts together.
>>
>> Regarding your initial list of 4 topics, I would consider #2, #3 and #4
>> prime topics of EMS 1.0+, and #1 more of an issue for the OGSA-RSS group,
>> which needs some man power here I guess.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> -- 
>>   ogsa-wg mailing list
>>   ogsa-wg at ogf.org
>>   http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-wg
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-wg/attachments/20070812/82714e75/attachment.pgp