Create CLOUD-EDGE-CLIENT_COORDINATION_CG_Proposal #22
Conversation
|
I wonder if we should use the W3C CG charter template. It helps give a structure to precisely define the scope of the CG's work, as well as default processes for decisions and chair selections. |
|
Definitely worth using the template, although CGs are not as strict about that as IGs and WGs. |
| 2、Group Description | ||
| The mission of this group is to provide mechanisms and interfaces between Central Cloud, Edge-Cloud, and Client for computing workload offloading and orchestration. | ||
| The typical use cases include AI acceleration, cloud gaming, streaming acceleration, etc. The goal is to design a set of new APIs and mechanisms | ||
| that enable computing workload offloading and orchestration between Central Cloud, Edge Cloud, and Client. It should leverage existing mechanisms as much as possible |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One thing I've been thinking about generally is that there are two kinds of "edge" computer, those managed as an extension of the cloud (Cloud-Edge), and those that are actually clients, e.g. other client computers on the LAN. Some of the use cases I have been thinking about are for offloading to "Distributed Compute Resources" which I have been using to avoid getting into arguments about the definition of "Edge". However - the term "Edge-Cloud" may be too restrictive here. How about we simply use "Cloud, Edge, and Client" for the charter? We can refine the definitions later if we want (e.g. add terms for Central Cloud, Edge-Cloud, Edge-Client, Client, etc.).
| and should coordinate with related W3C working groups and other SDOs and open-source communities if necessary. | ||
|
|
||
| 3、Short name | ||
| CloudEdge |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm ok with this personally, but Intel is currently trying to emphasize the role of client more. So "CloudEdgeClient" would probably make the client-computing group at Intel happier, although it is longer. It does seem odd to leave out one of three things we are coordinating. Or we could just use an acronym of the long name, e.g. CEC or CECC (CECCCG may be a mouthful though, so I'm thinking CECCG.) On reflection, though, an acronym does not have as much impact as an "Explanatory" name so Cloud-Edge-Client CG would be better. I would avoid names that are words but have no relation to the topic.
Co-authored-by: Michael McCool <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Michael McCool <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Michael McCool <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Michael McCool <[email protected]>
Merge inputs from PR: w3c#22
No description provided.