The International Dimension One of the initial services the networks intended to offer their clients was access to OMI results. It was envisioned that this should not be passive access, but proactive promotion through which the OMI offering was always proposed to the SME if there was an OMI solution to their problem. Despite multiple attempts to identify and establish an OMI solution for a problem, we were unable to promote OMI beyond the stage of a possible option and to achieve acceptance from an SME to use OMI technology. Multiple reasons exists for this: the huge difficulties identifying an OMI option if at all available; poor packaging and immature technology; low market profile for OMI developments suggesting they are not widely used and far from being a de-facto market standard; absence of previous experiences of applying the technology; most of the hardware developed within OMI is available only as chip building blocks (macrocells) not as chip-sets. In total the OMI option was rejected, as it was perceived to be too risky by the potential user. SMEs are highly risk-sensitive and usually do not operate in volumes justifying development of ASICs that can exploit OMI results, even if the macrocells were licensable with reasonable effort. The responsibility for marketing the OMI results lies with the companies originally developing the processor core or macrocell. The User Support Networks can, not and should not, take on this marketing effort. For the macrocells to find a market with the SMEs they must be turned into chip-sets easily available with proper documentation like application notes helping the SMEs engineer systems exploiting these chips. Knowledge about the available results is a key problem and there is an imminent need for a catalogue detailing what are available out of OMI, the availability of the products, terms and conditions, and application references. Grids: The International Dimension Brian Coghlan Trinity College Dublin

UK Grid Projects AstroGrid GridPP UK e-Science One of the initial services the networks intended to offer their clients was access to OMI results. It was envisioned that this should not be passive access, but proactive promotion through which the OMI offering was always proposed to the SME if there was an OMI solution to their problem. Despite multiple attempts to identify and establish an OMI solution for a problem, we were unable to promote OMI beyond the stage of a possible option and to achieve acceptance from an SME to use OMI technology. Multiple reasons exists for this: the huge difficulties identifying an OMI option if at all available; poor packaging and immature technology; low market profile for OMI developments suggesting they are not widely used and far from being a de-facto market standard; absence of previous experiences of applying the technology; most of the hardware developed within OMI is available only as chip building blocks (macrocells) not as chip-sets. In total the OMI option was rejected, as it was perceived to be too risky by the potential user. SMEs are highly risk-sensitive and usually do not operate in volumes justifying development of ASICs that can exploit OMI results, even if the macrocells were licensable with reasonable effort. The responsibility for marketing the OMI results lies with the companies originally developing the processor core or macrocell. The User Support Networks can, not and should not, take on this marketing effort. For the macrocells to find a market with the SMEs they must be turned into chip-sets easily available with proper documentation like application notes helping the SMEs engineer systems exploiting these chips. Knowledge about the available results is a key problem and there is an imminent need for a catalogue detailing what are available out of OMI, the availability of the products, terms and conditions, and application references. GridPP UK e-Science

European Grid Projects: DataGrid [EDG] One of the initial services the networks intended to offer their clients was access to OMI results. It was envisioned that this should not be passive access, but proactive promotion through which the OMI offering was always proposed to the SME if there was an OMI solution to their problem. Despite multiple attempts to identify and establish an OMI solution for a problem, we were unable to promote OMI beyond the stage of a possible option and to achieve acceptance from an SME to use OMI technology. Multiple reasons exists for this: the huge difficulties identifying an OMI option if at all available; poor packaging and immature technology; low market profile for OMI developments suggesting they are not widely used and far from being a de-facto market standard; absence of previous experiences of applying the technology; most of the hardware developed within OMI is available only as chip building blocks (macrocells) not as chip-sets. In total the OMI option was rejected, as it was perceived to be too risky by the potential user. SMEs are highly risk-sensitive and usually do not operate in volumes justifying development of ASICs that can exploit OMI results, even if the macrocells were licensable with reasonable effort. The responsibility for marketing the OMI results lies with the companies originally developing the processor core or macrocell. The User Support Networks can, not and should not, take on this marketing effort. For the macrocells to find a market with the SMEs they must be turned into chip-sets easily available with proper documentation like application notes helping the SMEs engineer systems exploiting these chips. Knowledge about the available results is a key problem and there is an imminent need for a catalogue detailing what are available out of OMI, the availability of the products, terms and conditions, and application references. 11 countries 21 instutions DataGrid GLOBUS SITES

European Grid Projects: CrossGrid [X#] One of the initial services the networks intended to offer their clients was access to OMI results. It was envisioned that this should not be passive access, but proactive promotion through which the OMI offering was always proposed to the SME if there was an OMI solution to their problem. Despite multiple attempts to identify and establish an OMI solution for a problem, we were unable to promote OMI beyond the stage of a possible option and to achieve acceptance from an SME to use OMI technology. Multiple reasons exists for this: the huge difficulties identifying an OMI option if at all available; poor packaging and immature technology; low market profile for OMI developments suggesting they are not widely used and far from being a de-facto market standard; absence of previous experiences of applying the technology; most of the hardware developed within OMI is available only as chip building blocks (macrocells) not as chip-sets. In total the OMI option was rejected, as it was perceived to be too risky by the potential user. SMEs are highly risk-sensitive and usually do not operate in volumes justifying development of ASICs that can exploit OMI results, even if the macrocells were licensable with reasonable effort. The responsibility for marketing the OMI results lies with the companies originally developing the processor core or macrocell. The User Support Networks can, not and should not, take on this marketing effort. For the macrocells to find a market with the SMEs they must be turned into chip-sets easily available with proper documentation like application notes helping the SMEs engineer systems exploiting these chips. Knowledge about the available results is a key problem and there is an imminent need for a catalogue detailing what are available out of OMI, the availability of the products, terms and conditions, and application references. 11 countries 21 instutions CrossGrid DataGrid GLOBUS SITES

US Grid Projects Globus NSF programs: DOE Science Grid Nat.Partnership Adv.Comp. Infra. (NPACI) Nat.Computational Science Alliance (NCSA) TeraGrid One of the initial services the networks intended to offer their clients was access to OMI results. It was envisioned that this should not be passive access, but proactive promotion through which the OMI offering was always proposed to the SME if there was an OMI solution to their problem. Despite multiple attempts to identify and establish an OMI solution for a problem, we were unable to promote OMI beyond the stage of a possible option and to achieve acceptance from an SME to use OMI technology. Multiple reasons exists for this: the huge difficulties identifying an OMI option if at all available; poor packaging and immature technology; low market profile for OMI developments suggesting they are not widely used and far from being a de-facto market standard; absence of previous experiences of applying the technology; most of the hardware developed within OMI is available only as chip building blocks (macrocells) not as chip-sets. In total the OMI option was rejected, as it was perceived to be too risky by the potential user. SMEs are highly risk-sensitive and usually do not operate in volumes justifying development of ASICs that can exploit OMI results, even if the macrocells were licensable with reasonable effort. The responsibility for marketing the OMI results lies with the companies originally developing the processor core or macrocell. The User Support Networks can, not and should not, take on this marketing effort. For the macrocells to find a market with the SMEs they must be turned into chip-sets easily available with proper documentation like application notes helping the SMEs engineer systems exploiting these chips. Knowledge about the available results is a key problem and there is an imminent need for a catalogue detailing what are available out of OMI, the availability of the products, terms and conditions, and application references. NASA Information Power Grid DOE Science Grid PPDG FusionGRID IVDGL NERSC PNNL ANL LBNL ORNL DOESG ESG GUSTO SC98: 23 sites / 9 countries Feb-2000: 125 sites / 23 countries Globus

US-European Projects DataTAG One of the initial services the networks intended to offer their clients was access to OMI results. It was envisioned that this should not be passive access, but proactive promotion through which the OMI offering was always proposed to the SME if there was an OMI solution to their problem. Despite multiple attempts to identify and establish an OMI solution for a problem, we were unable to promote OMI beyond the stage of a possible option and to achieve acceptance from an SME to use OMI technology. Multiple reasons exists for this: the huge difficulties identifying an OMI option if at all available; poor packaging and immature technology; low market profile for OMI developments suggesting they are not widely used and far from being a de-facto market standard; absence of previous experiences of applying the technology; most of the hardware developed within OMI is available only as chip building blocks (macrocells) not as chip-sets. In total the OMI option was rejected, as it was perceived to be too risky by the potential user. SMEs are highly risk-sensitive and usually do not operate in volumes justifying development of ASICs that can exploit OMI results, even if the macrocells were licensable with reasonable effort. The responsibility for marketing the OMI results lies with the companies originally developing the processor core or macrocell. The User Support Networks can, not and should not, take on this marketing effort. For the macrocells to find a market with the SMEs they must be turned into chip-sets easily available with proper documentation like application notes helping the SMEs engineer systems exploiting these chips. Knowledge about the available results is a key problem and there is an imminent need for a catalogue detailing what are available out of OMI, the availability of the products, terms and conditions, and application references.

The Future EGEE: THE major investment in Grid Technology by EU & member states THE pan-European production grid 70 partners including Russia, US, Canada & Japan GEANT Close links to industry One of the initial services the networks intended to offer their clients was access to OMI results. It was envisioned that this should not be passive access, but proactive promotion through which the OMI offering was always proposed to the SME if there was an OMI solution to their problem. Despite multiple attempts to identify and establish an OMI solution for a problem, we were unable to promote OMI beyond the stage of a possible option and to achieve acceptance from an SME to use OMI technology. Multiple reasons exists for this: the huge difficulties identifying an OMI option if at all available; poor packaging and immature technology; low market profile for OMI developments suggesting they are not widely used and far from being a de-facto market standard; absence of previous experiences of applying the technology; most of the hardware developed within OMI is available only as chip building blocks (macrocells) not as chip-sets. In total the OMI option was rejected, as it was perceived to be too risky by the potential user. SMEs are highly risk-sensitive and usually do not operate in volumes justifying development of ASICs that can exploit OMI results, even if the macrocells were licensable with reasonable effort. The responsibility for marketing the OMI results lies with the companies originally developing the processor core or macrocell. The User Support Networks can, not and should not, take on this marketing effort. For the macrocells to find a market with the SMEs they must be turned into chip-sets easily available with proper documentation like application notes helping the SMEs engineer systems exploiting these chips. Knowledge about the available results is a key problem and there is an imminent need for a catalogue detailing what are available out of OMI, the availability of the products, terms and conditions, and application references. Regional Operations Centre: TCD is ROC for Ireland Resource Centres: TCD,UCC,NUIG,DIAS,…

1st EGEE Conference 1st EGEE Conference 1st CosmoGrid Conference 1st WebCom-G Conference 400+ delegates One of the initial services the networks intended to offer their clients was access to OMI results. It was envisioned that this should not be passive access, but proactive promotion through which the OMI offering was always proposed to the SME if there was an OMI solution to their problem. Despite multiple attempts to identify and establish an OMI solution for a problem, we were unable to promote OMI beyond the stage of a possible option and to achieve acceptance from an SME to use OMI technology. Multiple reasons exists for this: the huge difficulties identifying an OMI option if at all available; poor packaging and immature technology; low market profile for OMI developments suggesting they are not widely used and far from being a de-facto market standard; absence of previous experiences of applying the technology; most of the hardware developed within OMI is available only as chip building blocks (macrocells) not as chip-sets. In total the OMI option was rejected, as it was perceived to be too risky by the potential user. SMEs are highly risk-sensitive and usually do not operate in volumes justifying development of ASICs that can exploit OMI results, even if the macrocells were licensable with reasonable effort. The responsibility for marketing the OMI results lies with the companies originally developing the processor core or macrocell. The User Support Networks can, not and should not, take on this marketing effort. For the macrocells to find a market with the SMEs they must be turned into chip-sets easily available with proper documentation like application notes helping the SMEs engineer systems exploiting these chips. Knowledge about the available results is a key problem and there is an imminent need for a catalogue detailing what are available out of OMI, the availability of the products, terms and conditions, and application references. 16-22 April, 2004 1-day political event in Dublin: eInfrastructures (Internet & Grids) 6-day technical event in Cork In: Calender of Research Events of Irish EU Presidency High-impact event