[saga-rg] SAGA-CORE-WG charter revision 2

[Andre Merzky]

Well, we had that discussion before in the group, and came
to the result that is should be a standard.  I checked the
mailing list, this was discussed in 2003 already.

Actually, the agreement once was, IIRC, to have a language
independedn spec, with language bindings as appendix.  

We later thought that the doc gets too long, and also
delayed by the bindings, we split that up: language
independend spec, informal bindings.

Later someone proposed to do the bindings as specs as well,
to give them more weight, and people did not care either way
too much.

I can dig out the old notes and mails if that is of
interest, but I think we should not reopen too many issues
over and over again, once they have been settled - we are
running circles otherwise...

my 2 cent, Andre.


Quoting [Steven Newhouse] (Feb 09 2006):
> 
> >Yes, its an API specification.
> 
> >>Can an abstract API in SIDL be a recommendation ?
> 
> I would say not. We had this discussion in OGSA-WG with the BES (and 
> ByteIO) work. A SIDL is not a normative description of the interface, 
> unless there is defined mechanism for mapping from SIDL to a language 
> binding. The conversation we had on the telecon indicated that SAGA-RG 
> would not be producing a defined mapping mechanism, hence the need for 
> the language bindings to be the bit that is standardised.
> 
> Having a standards track SIDL and standards track binding seems an overkill.
> 
> Steven
-- 
"So much time, so little to do..."  -- Garfield