These are the mins/notes from the meeting held here today at EDINA from 1400-1530.  Please do let me have any modifications you may wish to suggest.

Present: Fiona Culloch (FC), John Watt (JW), Ally Hume (AH), Michael Koutroumpas (MK), Chris Higgins (CH)

CH kicked off by supplying some of the background to this meeting, ie, its arisen out of the geolinking interoperability experiment (IE) and the need to understand better whether the work done at NeSC Glasgow can easily be adapted to this demonstrator.  Security is not in scope for the IE but is the overall defining characteristic of the SEE-GEO project.  There are 3 possible outcomes from these discussion, either ways, its certainly not time wasted.

1. We identify a quick win that can be implemented within the timescale of the IE.

2. We identify that it is too much work for the IE, but write up the reasons for this and include in the projects written deliverables.

3. We identify that it is too much work for the IE, but decide to extend the demonstrator (or include in another demonstrator) later in the project.

JW outlined some of the work that had taken place in NeSC (particularly the VOTES project) and reported on the status of the discussions with Leeds.  He has had some contact but little has happened so far.

The discussion revolved around a high level sketch of the SEE-GEO geolinking architecture.  It is not immediately obvious how the work done under VOTES may be applied to geolinking - much of the security processing is being done in the client, and this is not the focus of SEE-GEO.

When considering how Shibb may be applied to the GLS, FC raised the concern that protecting a URL like this was not what Shibb was originally intended for although work has taken place in this area.

Action:  By 20th April, FC to give further thought to how Shibb makes sense under the geolinking scenario and write up.

It was noted that we can easily see a scenario where a number of GDAS and/framework datasets are advertised as available via a GLS, but that a particular user may be authorised to use only subsets.  FC commented on the approach being used by the UKDA to Shibbolise the census data.

JW raised th epossibility of using an entirely different security infrastructure based on Permis, although this retains the dependency on certificates.

Action:  By 20th April, JW to have written up how Permis maybe applied to the geolinking scenario.

AH spoke briefly about the options available using GT and OGSA-DAI (O-D).

Action:  By 20th April, AH to write up how O-D may be used to provide security using Permis as the external authorisation mechanism.

FC raised the need to consider the various Shibb2Grid and Grid2Shibb projects.

Action:  CH to take the text supplied by FC, JW, AH and attempt some synthesis (possibly with help from RS).