[tsc] Fwd: comments on OGF Technical Strategy document

Tue Jan 2 11:42:37 CST 2007

I am afraid that I do not believe in current document and having done 
negligible work on it, you should remove me from section 7 with 
contributers.
Here are some comments. First I would restate goal at start of section 2 
as something like

*The Open Grid Forum should commit all its available resources to the 
goal that before this decade is out, commercial and academic 
organizations will build real operational grids with OGF help.
*
We should try to be useful -- not to force people to use "our products" 
-- the purpose of interoperable frameworks is to enable people to choose 
the best of the best. I like the rest of section 2 and figure 1. I think 
however that section 3 describes a process that is very unlikely to 
succeed. In particular it seems to assume that all requirements are met 
either by OGF standards or an OGF WG producing a BKM. This is certainly 
not what happens today and inconsistent with current experience whether 
it be GIN or the equivalent of BKM's being produced around the world 
capturing state of the art in Grids. Sections 4 and 5 seem to be fine 
describing the standards work of OGF; this is important and useful but 
probably only part (possibly a modest part) of what it takes to build 
Grids. As noted by myself and Gannon 
http://grids.ucs.indiana.edu/ptliupages/publications/ReviewofServicesandWorkflow-IU-Aug2006B.pdf 
there is currently modest use of any (W3C OASIS OGF) standards in 
existing Grids and it will be a while before this changes. I think its 
unwise for OGF to put all its eggs in this basket!

I note that at SC06, the eScience function discussed the Technical 
Strategy document and given clear need to produce something soon, 
suggested that OGF aim at a set of documents with current document 
focused (as it is) on standards function and supplement this with other 
documents more in tune with the eScience drummer!

I could (given time) edit current document but as I think my philosophy 
is not in accord with other authors, that would not be useful!
**
David Snelling wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>   
>> From: "Linesch, Mark" <mark.linesch at hp.com>
>> Date: 2 January 2007 16:04:56 GMT
>> To: "David Snelling" <David.Snelling at UK.Fujitsu.com>, "Joel  
>> Replogle" <replogle at ogf.org>
>> Cc: <scrumb at ogf.org>
>> Subject: FW: comments on OGF Technical Strategy document
>>
>>  David, Joel,
>>
>> Comments on the TSC document from Greg Astfalk at HP. Mark
>>
>>
>> Mark Linesch: Open Grid Forum (OGF): Hewlett Packard
>> 281-514-0322 (Tel): 281-414-7082 (Cell) mark.linesch at hp.com :
>> linesch at ogf.org
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Astfalk, Greg
>> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 7:24 AM
>> To: Linesch, Mark; Walker, Martin Antony (HPTC); Vickers, Paul
>> Subject: comments on OGF Technical Strategy document
>>
>> FWIW, in no particular order, and ranging from mega- to minutia...
>>
>>  - Section 1.2 is missing a section numberin the third sentence
>>
>>  - Section 1.3:  "distributed computing at Internet scale" is a
>>    poor summation.  It will, for many people, eliminate the more
>>    practical and valuable intra-organization grids.
>>
>>  - Section 1.3, second paragraph implies that your focus is only on
>>    collections of supercomputers.  I certainly hope that is <not> the
>>    case.  Otherwise why did you merge with EGA, and why am I funding
>>    OGF?
>>
>>  - Section 2: the stated goal is laudable, very.  However, I have  
>> angst
>>    over the use of "defined" (see more comments below).  The clock is
>>    ticking and 3 years is a genuinely short time-frame to get through
>>    the process described later in the document.  For me this imples  
>> that
>>    you need to speed-up since pushing the date out is the wrong thing
>>    to do.
>>
>>  - In some places in the document you use the construct "...text -
>> text..."
>>    this should always be "...text<em-dashh>text...".  That is, use the
>>    em-dash character (Word has it) with no spaces on either side.   
>> There
>>    are some places where you did this.
>>
>>  - The bullet list in section 2 does not have the requisite  
>> emphasis on
>>    "product".  OGF needs to be known for more than jsut paper specs.
>>    How do reference implementations evolve to "product"?
>>
>>  - Figure 1: I assume that the union of use cases will provide the  
>> gaps?
>>    This should be almost known already, especially including the
>> commercial
>>    space.  This gors back to my point above that 2010 is an aggressive
>>    goal.
>>
>>  - OGF has a lot of WGs, some more important and relevant than others.
>>    Is there a possiblity of re-factoring the human capital toward
>> meeting
>>    the core set of WGs needed to meet your 2010 goal?  I am aware that
>>    this is volunteer stuff.
>>
>>  - Section 4.3: Would this be more accurate titled if it were "Data
>>    Movement"
>>
>>  - Section 4.3: Change "...from this from this..." to "...from  
>> this..."
>>
>>  - Section 4.6: You need to add auditing to the required list,  
>> i.e., all
>>    three components of the so-called AAA (aka triple-A) are necessary.
>>
>>  - Section 4.6.1" Tyhw work of Wenbo Mao in HPL-Beijing is, IMO,
>>    especially useful here.  It does, however, require the presence of
>> TPMs.
>>
>>  - Section 5 in the sub-bullet list: You list "Product" and that it is
>>    supported.  By who?  This goes back to my point on the word  
>> "defined"
>>    in your goal statement.  Organizations will not be able or ready to
>>    build operational grids without functioning code.  It is  
>> axiomatic to
>>    me that if only paper specs exist then your goal will not be
>> realizable.
>>    It is also nearly so that you can not develop "product" by  
>> then.  To
>>    have "support" by 2010 is, IMO, impossible.  Is this a solvable
>>    conundrum?
>>
>>  - Section 5: Change "Table 1 is not a complete list of OGF activity
>> nor..."
>>    to "Table 1 is neither a complete list of OGF activity nor...".   
>> You
>>    know, the ususal neither/nor, either/or thing...
>>
>>  - Section 6: A really, really good mandate.  Change "All OGF document
>>    must..." to "All OGF documents must...".
>>
>>
>>     
>
>   

-- 
:
: Geoffrey Fox  gcf at indiana.edu FAX 8128567972 http://www.infomall.org
: Phones Cell 812-219-4643 Home 8123239196 Lab 8128567977
: SkypeIn 812-669-0772 with voicemail, International cell 8123910207

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/tsc/attachments/20070102/05298c05/attachment-0001.html 