Identification of the deliverable or milestone | |
---|---|
Project: EMI | Deliverable or milestone identifier: D5.4.2 |
Title: DJRA1.4.2 - Infrastructure Area Work Plan and Status Report | Doc. identifier: EMI-DXXX-CDSREF-Title-vx.x |
Author(s): L. Field | Due date: __ |
Identification of the reviewer | ||
---|---|---|
Name: Jedrzej Rybicki | Affiliation: JUELICH | EMI Activity/External project or Institute: JRA1/SA1 |
Review date | mm/dd/yyyy |
Author(s) revision date | mm/dd/yyyy |
Reviewer acceptance date | mm/dd/yyyy |
N° | Page/Section | Observations and Replies | Is Addressed? |
1 | Section 3 | "As a result the PTB decided to move the Logging and Bookkeeping component from the Infrastructure Area to the Compute Area to help focus effort.", the information when it happened should be provided. LF: Addded the date when this meeting took place. |
yes |
2 | 3.5.2 | "OGF Usage Record standard", provide reference LF: Added a reference. |
yes |
3 | 3.5.2 | the abbreviation AMQ is not defined in terminology section. I would suggest to use ActiveMQ LF: Done |
yes |
4 | 4.4.2 | affected components include EMI Registry, and SAGA. But, if I understand it correctly, the information for the registry need to be somehow provided, so I guess much more components are involved here. For some of them you might even expect that modification will be needed. There is also UNICORE Registry, would it be affected? probably. LF: A new client will be required for the EMI service Registry so this will not affact any existing publishers. This objective does not require and changes to the UNICORE Registry. How the EMI Registry will affect the Unicore Registry interms of a possible replacement is addressed by the harmonization objective. |
no |
5 | 4.7.3 | The subtask definition sounds very similar to the goals already achieved in the first phase of the project (compare 3.7), it is not clear what kind of new findings should be included in the report which is due to M24. Furthermore the objective specify that a list of architectural changes should be provided, this is not reflected in the schedule. We don't want to miss such an important list, do we? Apart from the fact that a strategy provided in M24 will probably not be implemented in EMI (as there will be not enough time). LF: So there may be a difference here between the work be have already done and the official dealines in the DoW. Anyway, this is an issue that I would like to raise at the project management level. Lets leave this issue open for futher dicussion |
|
6 | 4.8.3 | "Obtain Compute Usage Record specification", 3.5.2 says that in the first phase, some development based on this standard was already conducted. How if the standard is yet to be obtained in M13? Or it is a different standard? What does it mean "to obtain" here? Do we have to buy it? LF: This is a tricky issue. The OGF Isage Record exists but it may not be good for us and we have to extend it. This work was an objective in the first year for the compute area. I use the word obtain as we are not defining it but have to get it from somewhere, the compute area. |
no |
7 | 4.11.2 | "the affected components were specified in 4.9.2" There are no components listed in 4.9.2 LF: changed to "will be identified in" |
yes |
N° | Page/Section | Observations and Replies | Is Addressed? |
1 | ToC | consistent usage of capital letters in ToC e.g *r*eferences, Information *s*ystem ..., GANTT *c*hart, etc. All sections of the same level should follow the same writing convention | yes |
2 | ToC | sometimes a "-" is put before "Definition of subtask" sometimes not, e.g 4.16.4 vs 4.10.3 | yes |
3 | ToC | sometimes the section "extended technical description of the objective" is omitted and the description (usually not very "extended") follows the section title. I might be a good idea to follow this principle (or the other one) consequently through the report. | yes |
4 | References | consistent usage of protocol in address, is: "R5 http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1277582![]() ![]() ![]() |
yes |
5 | Tables 1.5 and 1.6 are not "closed" on the left hand side. | yes | |
6 | Text formatting in 3.4 (is left), 3.7 (funny spaces at the end of lines and sentence broken in the middle), some tables have text floating left (e.g. 4.3.3) some have justified (e.g. 4.2.3), | yes |
I | Attachment | History | Action | Size | Date | Who | Comment |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
internalReview | r1 | manage | 5.0 K | 2011-05-19 - 16:39 | JedrzejRybicki | Internal JRA1 review |