| 43 | | (organized calls or meetings before GEC13?) |
| 44 | | |
| 45 | | Review conclusions in pre-meeting at GEC13 |
| 46 | | |
| 47 | | Review with working team at GEC13 |
| | 43 | |
| | 44 | Review with working team at GEC13 [[BR]] |
| | 45 | |
| | 46 | Summary of current status (Giridhar Manepalli): [[BR]] |
| | 47 | [http://groups.geni.net/geni/attachment/wiki/GEC13Agenda/InstrumentationAndMeasurement/T5%29%20%20MDOD%20Status%20-%20CNRI.pptx slides] [[BR]] |
| | 48 | |
| | 49 | Conclusions: [[BR]] |
| | 50 | |
| | 51 | Good things: [[BR]] |
| | 52 | Excellent start [[BR]] |
| | 53 | Collaborative Specification [[BR]] |
| | 54 | Great Coverage [[BR]] |
| | 55 | Nicely broken down into elements [[BR]] |
| | 56 | Mandatory vs. optional elements identified [[BR]] |
| | 57 | Genuine Use Cases: Gathering, transferring, and sharing [[BR]] |
| | 58 | |
| | 59 | Jensen's proposal (NetKarma): [[BR]] |
| | 60 | Current: Identifiers, Descriptors, Holders [[BR]] |
| | 61 | Proposed: Identification, Lineage/Provenance, Constraints/Security, MDO Description [[BR]] |
| | 62 | |
| | 63 | Zurawski's comments: [[BR]] |
| | 64 | Too many secondary identifiers [[BR]] |
| | 65 | Descriptors should be contextualized [[BR]] |
| | 66 | Variations based on the type of object [[BR]] |
| | 67 | GENI specific descriptions should be clearly marked and separated [[BR]] |
| | 68 | Slight changes to names & enclosing elements recommended [[BR]] |
| | 69 | |
| | 70 | Comments/suggestions based on metadata practices: [[BR]] |
| | 71 | Too many optional elements [[BR]] |
| | 72 | Too many choices given to users [[BR]] |
| | 73 | Users bound to take the path of least resistance [[BR]] |
| | 74 | Keep the scope restricted to only mandatory elements – at least in the beginning [[BR]] |
| | 75 | Try those out. Implement them. [[BR]] |
| | 76 | One size fits all ---- No! [[BR]] |
| | 77 | Capturing descriptions, formats, policies, transactions, etc. in a monolithic fashion [[BR]] |
| | 78 | Register individual components separately [[BR]] |
| | 79 | E.g., Capture legal formats & interpretations in their own records, and reference them here [[BR]] |
| | 80 | E.g., Same with accepted policies [[BR]] |
| | 81 | Identifiers cannot be semantic [[BR]] |
| | 82 | Domain, sub-domain, and object-type are part of an ID [[BR]] |
| | 83 | World view changes frequently [[BR]] |
| | 84 | Non-semantic Ids are worth every penny [[BR]] |
| | 85 | Search engines & registries mask the opaqueness [[BR]] |
| | 86 | After all, IDs are just entities behind the scenes [[BR]] |
| | 87 | Object Type controlled vocabulary enumerates apples and oranges [[BR]] |
| | 88 | Collection, flow, directory, file, database, gui are not mutually exclusive [[BR]] |
| | 89 | Doesn’t help the recipient make any decision looking at the descriptor [[BR]] |
| | 90 | Bundle type & format into format interpretation method [[BR]] |
| | 91 | Covers too many corner cases, e.g., flow-rate [[BR]] |
| | 92 | Expects too many details, e.g., locator (type, access method, etc.) [[BR]] |
| | 93 | |
| | 94 | |
