[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [cgs-wg] Jan 21 call aborted; Next call Feb 4
Something I have tried to express, and have not
expressed well enough (for which I apologize),
is that in my opinion this demo that we are
proposing does not have to "fit" what we are
doing in the CGS-WG with respect to the Job
Submission Information Model, although I agree
with Peter that it does fit. I am suggesting that
our work-group session is a necessary place for
the demo's presentation -- and not necessarily
the only place.
The demo is merely a way of showing what
has not been shown yet to many people who
have heard about the CIM, and are interested
in it because they have heard that it is
(potentially) the best solution to the
common problem across GGF groups: no common
Many people have not yet seen a CIM browser, they
have no idea what information a CIMOM produces at
this time, know nothing about the functionality
that exists at this time . . . and have no idea
what is possible and why and how it is possible
without the initial "look here" . . . this is
what's available now, and this is what it lacks,
and this is what we are doing now to make it
relate to the OGSA.
To someone who has seen a CIM browser, and to
one who knows this stuff, yes it is boring.
To someone else, who has never seen it, no it
will not be boring and it will go a long way
toward enriching their understanding as to
why the hype. It may even get us some needed
I am not "guessing" that many people would like
such a demo. I have heard it not only point
blank, but I have perceived it from having
listened to the questions people ask, and
the head scratching I've seen during the
work-group sesssions. All the nitty-gritty
talk as to how the pieces fit, and what the
code looks like, and what the MOF is, and
so forth has not shown people the simple
stuff like "here's the CIM browser, and this
is what you can do with it now, and this is
what we hope to do in the future" . . . .
Okay, I'll stop . . . Just trying to do
a better job at explaining why I think we
need a demo, regardless as to whether or
not this is a "working conference only,"
and regardless as to whether or not it
"fits" into our particular working group.
I think we skipped this step of a demo
early on, before a CGS working group was
formed, and we need to set this right.
After providing the demo, and after
hearing what people's questions are,
perhaps we can put the demo online,
On Jan 23, 8:21am, Larry Flon wrote:
> Subject: RE: [cgs-wg] Jan 21 call aborted; Next call Feb 4
> What do you mean by a "JSIM implementation"? We have MOF for a version of
> JSIM that Ellen has produced. JSIM is not perfect at this time, it is a
> snapshot, but what else would constitute an implementation?
> This goes to the question of what the exact form of a demo would be. One
> could use a CIM browser and browse through the JSIM classes. That isn't
> very exciting, but is probably all we could do.
> Better would be to have a job scheduler actually utilize the JSIM CIM
> classes, but that is way beyond the scope of what our WG is about.
> So those that have proposed this demo, what exactly do you have in mind?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Maier [mailto:MAIERA@de.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:59 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [cgs-wg] Jan 21 call aborted; Next call Feb 4
> I can't make it either.
> Also, my understanding is that we will not have a JSIM implementation until
> then, it would rather be a general CIM demo. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> Andreas Maier
> IBM Senior Technical Staff Member, eServer Software Architecture and Design
> IBM Lab Boeblingen, firstname.lastname@example.org, +49-7031-16-3654
> ----- Forwarded by Andreas Maier/Germany/IBM on 23.01.2003 09:35 -----
> Jennifer Schopf
> <email@example.com> To: Peter Gietz
> <Peter.Gietz@daasi.de>, Larry Flon <flon@ISI.EDU>
> Sent by: cc:
> owner-cgs-wg@grid Subject: Re: [cgs-wg] Jan 21
> call aborted; Next call Feb 4
> 22.01.2003 19:48
> Maybe it would make sense to do a roll call for who will be at GGF in tokyo
> before we plan on what to do there?
> Tom can't make it it sounds like, nor Viktor - what about other folks?
> At 12:19 PM 1/22/2003 +0100, Peter Gietz wrote:
> Very unfortunate indeed, I am very sorry. Beeing very busy with other
> projects, I lost sight of times and dates :-(
> February 4 is ok with me, I will definitely be there.
> Larry's tentative agenda looks good to me.
> Thanks Larry.
> Larry Flon wrote:
> There was a scheduled call today, but only Ellen, Andreas and I
> were there,
> so we aborted the call after 20 minutes. This was unfortunate,
> because I had
> hoped we could discuss the topic of a JSIM demo at GGF7.
> The next call is scheduled for Tuesday Feb 4. Those of you that
> interested in the JSIM demo topic please plan to join us. If we
> don't spend
> some time discussing it on the 4th, it probably won't happen at
> Peter, will your schedule allow you to participate and lead the
> The next call is scheduled for 4-Feb-03, with a followup on
> 18-Feb. Two
> weeks after that we will be at GGF7, so the 18th will be the
> last call
> before Tokyo.
> The following call information applies to these upcoming calls.
> The CGS-WG has a bi-weekly teleconference on Tuesdays at these
> 08.00-09.00 US Pacific (e.g. Los Angeles)
> 09.00-10.00 US Mountain (e.g. Denver)
> 10.00-11.00 US Central (e.g. Chicago)
> 11.00-12.00 US Eastern (e.g. New York)
> 16.00-17.00 GMT UK (e.g. London)
> 17.00-18.00 Central Europe (e.g. Paris)
> 01.00-02.00 Japan (next day)
> The next teleconference is scheduled for: 4 Feb 2003
> The teleconference information is:
> domestic: 1 888 709 8699
> international: 1 773 799 3951
> passcode: 35316
> A tentative agenda for this call follows:
> 1. Agenda bashing
> 2. JSIM Demo at GGF7?
> 3. Open questions:
> - BatchJob Class - description of task to execute, e.g.
> script/command/program, parameters, recovery options,
> management of output, etc. Provide a single, uninterpreted
> text string as a place holder in this first release?
> Or try to drill down and come up with a real schema?
> - BatchJob recovery options - stop, re-run, notify, etc.
> - BatchService Class - define common and useful properties.
> - BatchJobGroup vs. Workflow - is there a simple
> that we should include, without opening Pandora's workflow box?
> 3. Any other
> Peter Gietz (CEO)
> DAASI International GmbH phone: +49 7071 2970336
> Wilhelmstr. 106 Fax: +49 7071 295114
> D-72074 Tübingen email: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Germany Web: www.daasi.de
> Directory Applications for Advanced Security and Information
> Dr. Jennifer M. Schopf
> Distributed Systems Lab phone: (630)252-3313
> Argonne National Laboratory fax: (630)252-1997
> 9700 S. Cass Ave, Bldg 221 email: email@example.com
> Argonne, IL 60439 http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~jms
>-- End of excerpt from Larry Flon