Entities to be discussed:AdminDomain, Location and Contact

Phone Meeting

• Date: 25 Oct 2007
• Time: 9 AM Chicago, 3 PM London, 4 PM Rome (conversion to other timezones)
• Calling number: +41 22 76 77000 (ask to be connected to "Glue Schema Meeting")
• Shared screen session information:
  • URL: http://glue-wg.glance.net
  • Key: 2510

Participants:

• Sergio Andreozzi (INFN)
• Michele Carpenè (INFN)
• Marco Canaparo (INFN)
• Laurence Field (CERN)
• Felix Ehm (CERN)
• Steven Burke (RAL)
• John-Paul Navarro (TeraGrid)
• Balazs Konya (NorduGrid)

Minutes

Sergio presented the GLUE 2.0 specification draft on Glance. In detail the Domain, AdminDomain, Location and Contact entities were discussed.

• Domain Entity:
  • ID : Leading question: "Should there be a standard which defines the way the ID is constructed?".
    LF raised the question if this should be defined in the schema document.
    Discussing this and the way it could be used, the common conclusion was to make a recommodation (like 3.) in the schema document, but don't make a strict definition of how the ID is constructed. There was the suggestion to check this with the way the VO naming convention is currently done. -> open
    • possible approaches to Domain.ID
      • URL-like
        • admindomain://t1.infn.it
        • admindomain://cern.ch
      • URN
        • urn:admindomain:t1.infn.it
        • urn:admindomain:cern.ch
      • DNS-based
        • t1.infn.it
        • cern.ch
  • Description: AGREED -> A Domain should contain >1 Description
  • WWW: AGREED -> OK, multiplicity *
  • OtherInfo: AGREED -> Multiplicity *

• AdminDomain:
  • Distributed: It has be found that there are existing examples for a distributed AD. Therefore it has been decided to be useful. AGREED -> OK, optional
  • Owner:
    • syntax about Owner:
      • check VO names from GIN WG
      • check if AdminDomain syntax can be taken as example
    • AGREED -> OK (e.g. the institute name / VO name )

• Location entity:
  • Address: format should be checked with CIM Address specification
  • ID: The ID should be a localID. Since several Domains could share the same location, it makes sence to distinguish those by a localID.
    • examples:
      • bologna-italy
  • Longitute & Latitute: The Significant numbers are a recommodation in the schema document (9) AGREED -> OK, with constraint that a Domain entity should only have 1 Location entry

• Contact entity:
  • ID: Since a Domain can hold several Contact entities, they are in the scope of the Domain. A LocalID is therefore sufficient.
    AGREED : LocalID
  • URL: ADDED, AGREED -> OK
  • Type: AGREED -> OK
  • OtherInfo: A Contact may have several additional information -> Multiplicity *

ACTIONS:

1. Sergio will update the Glue 2.0 Specification document according to the agreements obove and will create a XML example file for the entities.
2. Felix will create a relational schema for the entities.
3. Laurence will create the LDAP schema for the entities.
4. Laurence send info on CIM Address
5. Stephen send info for DNS-based VO names used in EGEE

Resources

- GLUE Initial Draft in XML http://forge.cnaf.infn.it/plugins/scmsvn/viewcvs.php/glue/xml/?root=omii-europe