| |
Comment: |
More from Geoffery:
I believe that the document needs a stronger discussion of role of pre-existing software, Information documents reviewing them, workshops, software
user forums, Enterprise adoption/requirements etc. I could write this but not now as end of semester chaos is raining down all over me!
I could do this by end of 2006
-------------------------------------
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!
|
