[Pgi-wg] meeting notes from OGF29?

[Mark Morgan]

I think that you might be interpreting the phrase "middleware- 
specific" incorrectly here.  You are correct that use cases are  
generally provided by users, but seeing as how PGI doesn't have any  
users we could ask to provide use cases between now and tomorrow, we  
opted for the next best thing which is to ask the PGI group members  
(and OGF at large ofcourse) to provide some.  The use cases are  
necessary here because without use cases driving requirements, it's  
hard to justify or even categorize whether or not requirements are  
actually required.  Since the PGI group has already produced  
requirements, the belief is that the members of that group must have  
some use cases that they believe are driving the requirements that  
they came up with.  In this context, the term "middleware-specific"  
use cases is misleading and incorrect.  The point was rather that each  
middleware group (or pgi/ogf member) would supply use cases that s/he  
believes are important for PGI and that as a group we would collect  
these use cases together to form a use case document for the PGI group  
with which to drive the requirements process and to lend backing  
support to the requirements that we carry forward into the following  
standards phases.  So, it's not that the use cases are specific to a  
piece of middleware, but rather that middleware folks represent a type  
of user (in addition to anyone else with uses cases) and in the  
absence of having real users to supply use cases, they are the next  
logical choice.

-Mark

On Jul 1, 2010, at 3:34 PM, Oxana Smirnova wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'd second this request - I learned that we are supposed to provide  
> middleware-specific use cases (which sounds a bit odd for me), and I  
> couldn't find out what is the status of requirements, and how do the  
> use cases relate to them.
>
>
> Regarding use cases: in my experience, they are provided by *users*  
> (surprise, surprise ;-) ), and every middleware should be able to  
> address the same use case(s). The proposed split of use cases per  
> middleware suggests that middlewares are inherently non- 
> interoperable because they address different use cases. Is this the  
> new approach (no interoperability needed), or is the goal to find  
> overlapping use cases?
>
> Cheers,
> Oxana
>
>
> 01.07.2010 14:38, Balazs Konya пишет:
>>
>> Hi PGI,
>>
>> I heard from the nordugrid people that many things had happened  
>> during the
>> productive OGF29 sessions. I was wondering if meeting notes  
>> containing decisions
>> are available somewhere? Or the decisions are implicitly contained  
>> in the google
>> document?
>>
>>
>> bye,
>> Balazs
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pgi-wg mailing list
>> Pgi-wg at ogf.org
>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg
> <oxana_smirnova.vcf>_______________________________________________
> Pgi-wg mailing list
> Pgi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4935 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/pgi-wg/attachments/20100701/1bd9b19f/attachment.bin