[Risge-rg] Summary of the voting for evaluation of standards / next steps

[Constantinos (Costas) Kotsokalis]

Dear Michael,

WS-Agreement would probably fit into this category. It lacks a domain- 
specific language for the reservation of instruments, but the  
messaging protocol for performing the reservation is there.

I assume the scheduling itself is use-case specific, depending on the  
properties that the instrument provider wishes to optimize, while the  
reservation _mechanism_ (i.e. how the locking is performed) is  
instrument-specific.

Best regards,

  Costas


On 10 Aug 2009, at 10:34, Michael Schiffers wrote:

> Dear all,
> according to "The objective of the evaluation is to check what are the
> existing standards in each of the subjects. We would like to see  
> whether
> all the subjects are fully covered by standardisation." I would
> appreciate group anwers to the following question:
>
> Which standards do you consider relevant for the SCHEDULING of  
> instruments?
>
> Thanks and Best, Michael
>
>
>
> Marcin Plociennik schrieb:
>>
>> Dear All,
>> Summary of the voting results:
>>
>> - "Accessing instruments in a standard way/unique interface" -
>> coordinated by Roberto Pugliese, Duane Edgington, David Wallom
>> - "Data handling – getting data out of the instruments" -  
>> coordinated by
>> Franco Davoli, FZK group: Michael Sutter, Rainer Stotzka, David  
>> Wallom
>> - "Near real time/fast data retrieval and transfer of data /  
>> streams" -
>> coordinated by Franco Davoli, FZK group: Michael Sutter, Rainer  
>> Stotzka,
>> David Wallom
>> - "Service Discovery Information" - coordinated by Marcin Plociennik
>> - "Way of monitoring Instruments" - coordinated by Michael Schiffers,
>> Mary Grammatikou, David Wallom
>> - "Accounting for instruments instrument health" - coordinated by  
>> David
>> Wallom
>> - "Scheduling of the instruments" - coordinated by Michael Schiffers
>>
>> we had no volunteer for "Calibration (travelling standards)", so we
>> would for the moment skip the subject,
>> and maybe come back depending on the evaluation on the rest of  
>> subjects.
>>
>> I think we should consider first the solution that are/were  
>> proposed by
>> the project involved in
>> the group. So during the evaluation please consider asking the  
>> questions
>> to the whole list .
>>
>> Just to remind some of the project contacts:
>> http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/docman/do/listDocuments/projects.risge-rg/docman.root.involved_projects
>>
>> I hope we will be able to fininsh the evaluations before holiday  
>> time,
>> so before 20th of June.
>>
>> There was no remarks to proposed template of the evaluation report,  
>> so I
>> think we can start to
>> work on it.
>>
>> Please consider the RISGE-RG Forge webspace to put draft versions  
>> of the
>> documents (one document per subject),
>> since the work will be done usually by 3-4 people, so from one hand  
>> it
>> will be easier to collaborate, from another hand,
>> we could see the progress in each subject.
>> For this purpose I have created the directory in our webspace:
>> http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/docman/do/listDocuments/projects.risge-rg/docman.root.standards_evaluation
>>
>>
>> best regards
>> marcin
>>
>