This is a static archive of the previous Open Grid Forum GridForge content management system saved from host file /sf/go/projects.pgi-wg/discussion.meetings.topc4355 at Sun, 06 Nov 2022 11:28:06 GMT SourceForge : Post

Project Home




Source Code


File Releases


Project Admin
Project: pgi-wg     Discussion > Meetings > Meeting 2010-10-26 - OGF30 PGI Session (3) > List of Posts
Forum Topic - Meeting 2010-10-26 - OGF30 PGI Session (3): (2 Items)
View:  as 
Meeting 2010-10-26 - OGF30 PGI Session (3)
Conclusions of the requirement presentations.

Reduction of the requirements and prioritization in order to engage in further specification work (in collaboration or 
by other groups such as GLUE, BES, JSDL) have been discussed.

These discussions have been largely build on the following table:

Outcome was a figure with the focus of the group:

This figure needs to be now put into a plan of how to proceed by which persons in dedicated specification groups and 
such requirements what could not be covered in others groups such GLUE, BES, JSDL should be profiles by PGI afterwards 
on top.

After all these we come possibly back and work on the rest of the requirements and do perhaps another specification 

Some notes from the discussions by Johannes:

Morris take our requirements to GLUE
JSDL static
next step: need to know what we want before we bring other people in

Real implementations?

first deliverable out in November

PoCs, prototypes
there is still space

JP Navarro:
next steps?

test it against use cases
inject requirements into BES
as soon as it works

doesn't make so much sense to add another execution service
we don't want to waste effort

take two proposed approaches and merge those

effect of changes during Feb, Aug next year?

it it easy to talk standards, to do is much harder

data not covered

Mark and I time to put effort into BES

Steve and Tim





EC projects with dedicated efforts in standardization:
If somebody is not willing to participate, they are failing in
description of work.

don't care if show up or not,
revisit everything, no progress

process point
spreadsheet with color code to list
priority activity of working group
7 days for objections to the list

strongly argue the scope

engage the people who need to be engaged

rough consensus is enough

globally aprove all of the greens

Re: Meeting 2010-10-26 - OGF30 PGI Session (3)
Reviewing these notes and the associated requirement spreadsheet at I 
have found several issues :

A) Green color of spreadsheet cells for vote count (column T)
At the end of these notes, it is mentioned that I 'globally approve all of the greens'.
I confirm that I expressed this position.
But inside the spreadsheet, the vote count cells (column T) which were green have turned yellow !
Then, my above position has no meaning anymore.

B) Requirements supported by EDGI
Inside the requirement spreadsheet, you took into account only the 26 'Mandatory requirements' from my mail dated 19 
October 2010 at 14:33.

In fact, you should have taken into account the 'Complete list of requirements' specified at the end of the same mail.

Therefore, I have updated the requirement spreadsheet with this complete list (70 requirements).

C) Votes for requirements WITHOUT 'yes' status
Inside the process of voting for requirements, we were supposed to vote ONLY for requirements having 'yes' status.

Inside the requirement spreadsheet, it seemed to me that some votes were for requirements WITHOUT 'yes' status.

In order to be sure, I have reactivated the display of the column displaying 'Agreement OGF29' (column F), and I have 
colored in yellow all cells NOT containing 'yes'.

This clearly shows that MANY votes were for requirements WITHOUT 'yes' status.

In particular, requirement 10 'SSL certificates of servers MUST be signed by a CA belonging to IGTF ' gathered 3 votes.

This indicates that some requirements NOT having 'yes' status still have a great importance for several PGI members.

Therefore, I propose to perform a new round of voting, allowing votes for all requirements WITHOUT consideration of 
their previous status.

If this proposal is accepted, I would also vote for following requirements :
10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 27, 38, 39, 41, 49, 51, 53, 75, 127, 161, 162, 164, 167

Counting of votes has perhaps been performed too hastily.

The attached 'PGI-Requirements-2010-10-26-Review-Etienne.xls' file contains the 'Complete list of requirements' of EDGI,
 and displays the 'Agreement OGF29' column (but I have NOT added any EDGI vote for any requirement NOT having 'yes' 

I suggest that each PGI member carefully checks the content of this spreadsheet.

Anyway, I still agree with the priorities stated at OGF30 :
1) XML rendering for GLUE 2.0
2) Usage of GLUE 2.0 entities and attributes inside JSDL
3) Usage of GLUE 2.0 entities and attributes inside JSDL for SPMD and MPI
4) Usage of GLUE 2.0 entities and attributes inside JSDL to describe Applications
5) Usage of GLUE 2.0 entities and attributes inside BES

Etienne URBAH
Attachment: PGI-Requirements-2010-10-26-Review-Etienne.xls 177 KB


The Open Grid Forum Contact Webmaster | Report a problem | GridForge Help
This is a static archive of the previous Open Grid Forum GridForge content management system saved from host file /sf/go/projects.pgi-wg/discussion.meetings.topc4355 at Sun, 06 Nov 2022 11:28:06 GMT