Hiro,

I have looked at the primer and the roadmap and I don't believe they
properly reflect what we agreed to on July 10. I believe that both documents
give the mistaken impression that the HPC Profile is somehow "part of" or
"connected to" OGSA, which you have previously agreed we are not. I believe
that changes should be made to both documents.

Regarding the "roadmap":

I don't agree with this phrasing: "Although, some documents are not OGSA
specific, for example 'reference model' and 'HPC profile,' they have an
important role within the OGSA concept, as they are used to complete an OGSA
system and hence are explained in this document."

"As they are used to complete an OGSA system" makes no sense to me, both
regarding the word "complete" and the phrase "an OGSA system".

Furthermore, describing the HPC Profile WG effort in Section 5 ("OGSA
Recommended Profile Schedule") is not appropriate. As stated in the first
line, Section 5 "... provides the development schedule of OGSA Profile
documents" -- we're not OGSA so why is HPC Profile even mentioned? 

Why do I object? 

The HPC Profile WG is a standalone operation. Someone reading this OGSA doc
(both the primer and the roadmap) would mistakenly believe that if they were
to use/endorse the HPC Profile efforts they might have to endorse all of the
other stuff in OGSA (e.g., the security profiles). This would inevitably
scare someone off. 

Our HPC Profile WG is not interested in "OGSA Branding", so I would
appreciate it if you could make the modifications to the documents (this
email focuses on the "roadmap" document but I see in the minutes that there
are plans to write something about "HPC Profile WG" in the primer, which too
doesn't make sense).

-- Marty