[jsdl-wg] Fwd: JSDL 2.0 BOF?
alexander.papaspyrou at tu-dortmund.de
alexander.papaspyrou at tu-dortmund.de
Thu Sep 30 10:50:01 CDT 2010
Another thing I could think of is some kind of harmonization (maybe even adoption) between Activity Instance and the BES Activity within BES 1.1/2.0.
-Alexander
Am 30.09.2010 um 04:21 schrieb Andreas Savva:
> Andrew,
>
> JSDL-WG has been discussing seriously, as far as I am concerned, for the
> last couple of OGFs what to do once the Activity specification is
> done--now in PC so that's ok. There is a fairly well understood set of
> next steps. I'll outline the top two here:
>
> 1. SPMD 2.0
> - Start with an experience document for SPMD 1.0 and use the
> requirements generated for SPMD 2.0
> - Morris has the most comprehensive set of requirements, which he
> presented to JSDL-WG last March. One can say that there is some work along
> this path already, albeit very slowly. We need some additional involvement.
> - I'll take the blame for not starting the experience document over the
> summer. Busy with real work (tm).
>
> 2. Adoption of GLUE XML schema
> - Pending on a GLUE normative XML schema published by *OGF*. Work on
> this seems to have restarted recently, but I am not sure what the exact
> state is.
> - Requires cooperation with BES-WG since we have to narrow down to the
> set useful for job submission
> - GFD.137 outlines using GLUE and XPath/XQuery for resource
> requirements. Personally I *don't care* how requirements are expressed as
> long as there is sufficient consensus. This usually means that there are
> people willing to work on something...
>
> I know people like to say 'JSDL 2.0' but, really, in the best tradition of
> divide-and-conquer there are a set of well-understood steps that can
> evolve things forward. As such I do not see the need for a BOF. I think it
> would actually be counterproductive because we'd go back to talking about
> what to do rather than doing it. The real question is whether there are
> people willing to work on these. A related question is whether they would
> be willing to work in JSDL-WG. At the last OGF it wasn't clear to me that
> this is the case.
>
> Do you have other ideas on what should be at the top of list?
>
> Andreas
>
>
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:19:48 +0900, Andreas Savva
> <andreas.savva at jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
>> [Posting on behalf of Andrew]
>>
>> ------- Forwarded message -------
>> From: "Andrew Grimshaw" <grimshaw at virginia.edu>
>> To: "Andreas Savva" <andreas.savva at jp.fujitsu.com>, jsdl-wg at ogr.org
>> Cc: "'Mark Morgan'" <mmm2a at virginia.edu>, "'Morris Riedel'"
>> <m.riedel at fz-juelich.de>
>> Subject: JSDL 2.0 BOF?
>> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:09:53 +0900
>>
>>
>> Andreas,
>>
>> I’d really like to have a JSDL 2.0 BOF/WG meeting in Brussels to
>> seriously
>> start looking at how to upgrade JSDL to accommodate lessons learned in
>> use. I’m sure you all have discussed this. Is there a plan on how to
>> proceed? Or can I work with anybody on moving forward? JSDL has been very
>> successful – but we need to keep up with new requirements of others will
>> define their own specs.
>>
>> A
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Andreas Savva
> Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd
> --
> jsdl-wg mailing list
> jsdl-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsdl-wg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4678 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/jsdl-wg/attachments/20100930/fa145102/attachment.bin
More information about the jsdl-wg
mailing list