1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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,…

8. 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