>1.  There is no use case relating to workflow and to data aware
>scheduling.  It seems that the list was conceived in such a way
>that most of the functions are somehow addressed by one or several
>OGF specifications.
>2.  In Section 5.0 (table 2), only the base specifications are
>mentioned, eg JSDL 1.0. What about JSDL 1.1, 2.0, ...? The roadmap
>should show the predicted evolution of the standards instead of
>just those specifications that are in progress today.
>
>3.  The document would also gain in providing the dependencies
>certain OGF specifications may have on other OGF, W3C, OASIS, IETF
>specifications.  This would allow the reader to see how the
>proposed roadmap may be affected by external dependencies.  And
>where relevant, it should list other specifications that may depend
>on OGF specifications.
>
>4.  Section 3, assessment criteria:  There should be a 4th point
>under question 1:  "d) How universal is the requirement to the
>community at large?"
>
>5.  Table 1 (Capabilities of Grids):  Suggest to highlight in bold
>the capabilities that are identified as priority targets further in
>the section.  Not sure service level management should be in
>Operations vs Resouce Management. One capability of Grids which
>seems to be missing is ?grid enablement tooling? (to help deploy
>legacy/existing applications onto a Grid).
>
>6.  Table 3 (medium term and gap analysis):  In this table, the
>gaps need to be highlighted - otherwise they get lost within all
>the other data in the table.
>
>7.  The doc needs a thorough reading by someone not intimately
>familiar with all the text because there are many grammatical and
>familiar with all the text because there are many grammatical and
>spelling errors - and I'm not providing them here because you
>requested text instead of markup.