[Pgi-wg] Gridiron, or standardization gone backwards

[Oxana Smirnova]

Hi David,

you actually bring me back to my first post about use cases, which said:

*** use cases must be provided by users

I still stand by it. Indeed, if we have a community that plays gridiron, 
they'll never agree to twist the existing rules in order to make it 
looking a bit like soccer. Yet, we are trying to do exactly this.

I never claim that one technological solution is better than another, 
just like I never will dare to claim that soccer is better than gridiron 
:-) What I say, is that they are *different*.

If anybody has a use case where these different systems must be brought 
together, I'd like to have *this* use case, described in details, what 
exactly is needed, what exactly has to be unified and standardised.

Cheers,
Oxana


On 20.07.2010 11:52, David Wallom wrote:
> Hello Oxana,
>
> Though I agree in the most parts with your analogy this does seem to be in
> one way or another the technologists again not getting what the user
> community want. Take for example Structural Biologists, they are
> collaborating across continental Europe, UK and US by at the moment having
> themselves to devise the translators/metalayers necessary to bridge across
> different infrastructures.
>
> We need to move beyond the 'my technical solution is better than yours' and
> realise that if we are not careful the user communities will just see that
> we are infighting and go their own way (or tell our funders that we are
> inefficient and not worth continuing). We must move towards standards and
> 'give' a little on all sides.
>
> The research community in the UK sees US collaboration as increasingly
> important with small amounts of EU collaboration because of funding. If we
> are not careful they will go their own way totally and we will not get them
> back. To go back to your analogy, If the user community wants to play
> gridiron you can shout until you are blue in the face about soccer but they
> will ignore you, it isn't suitable for them.
>
> David
>
>
> On 18/07/2010 01:39, "Oxana Smirnova"<oxana.smirnova at hep.lu.se>  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I intended to comment on use cases, but feel like commenting on the very fact
>> of their appearance.
>>
>> When the PGI founders first met in September 2008 (yes, 2008), they produced a
>> very advanced draft, almost a ready-made specification. The only reason they
>> could not call it a specification was that they were nobody - that is, OGF did
>> not know of them.
>>
>> They didn't have to waste time on formalizing use cases and requirements,
>> because all these were in their heads.
>>
>> In football terms, they played by similar rules, and didn't have to explain to
>> each other the gory details. They were driven by the desire to produce common
>> rules of the game for themselves, such that they can play in the same league.
>>
>> Then OGF kindly adopted the team, but at the cost of putting forward formal
>> requirements. No forward movement happened since. First step backwards was to
>> trim the specs to a "strawman". Second step backwards was to drop the strawman
>> and collect requirements. The third step backwards was to go back to use
>> cases. I dread to think what will be the next PGI decision? To create itself?
>>
>> In September 2008 we thought that by December same year we'll have the core
>> specs. Two years later we are discussing what is the best template for use
>> cases and which teleconferencing tool to use. This is, well, unbelievable.
>>
>> And Ithink I know the reason.  We try to compare incomparable things.
>>
>> Imagine an international football federation that brings together association
>> football, American football, rugby, Australian rules football and all such
>> things. And imagine this federation introducing common rules. What would this
>> rule be? Right, "the game is played on a large field by two teams". Is there
>> any practical use of this rule? No, every league will have to keep own
>> "extensions".
>>
>> Despite often looking brain-damaged, footballers are clever enough not to
>> invent common football rules. They realize that the term is overloaded, and
>> they manage to disambiguate it.
>>
>> Grids brought together by PGI are as different as gridiron is different from
>> soccer. Let's face it. They still can be played on the same pitch - meaning,
>> they can use same hardware - but attempts to device common
>> rules/specifications so far lead nowhere. It is as if gridiron guys would be
>> keeping insisting that soccer has to be played with a ball that doesn't even
>> look like a ball, and rugby folks would be agreeing, and soccer guys would be
>> scratching their heads and meekly saying that their use case is actually to
>> kick it with feet, not carry in armpits.
>>
>> The analogy is probably not exactly accurate, but I am quite frustrated, as I
>> can see no progress whatsoever. Of the original PGI "creators" only three are
>> still attending the meetings - Johannes, Aleksandr and myself.
>>
>> Any suggestions are welcomed.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Oxana
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: oxana_smirnova.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 293 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/pgi-wg/attachments/20100720/74bfbd2c/attachment.vcf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2357 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/pgi-wg/attachments/20100720/74bfbd2c/attachment.bin