Re: [ogsa-d-wg] [acs-wg] Data Use Case Scenarios document
Hi Keisuke and Mike, I read the current architecture draft ogsa-d-wg has up on their site, and there appears to be no conflicts. They do mention non-master replication in the context of "peer-to-peer". I refered to these a little differently in terms of "push", "pull", and "bi-directional". Mike, did you find the use cases up on ogsa-d or just through communications with Steven? I am working to continue to add detail to the replication presentation. I am attempting to define a "ReplicaElement" structure which will have properties of a unique instance id, replica id, the actual value of the data, modification and author history, and security constraint data. This one structure should be able to be used to represent a piece of data, a collection, a graph (tree), and a database, for a collection of replicas. Hopefully I can get this out before ogsa face2face to help stimulate the replication topics. Pete Ziu 571.235.0208 (c) mailto:pete@ziu.net (h) mailto:5712350208@tmomail.net (sms) To Michael Behrens <behrens@r2ad.com>, acs-wg@ggf.org cc bcc Subject Re: [ogsa-d-wg] [acs-wg] Data Use Case Scenarios document Keisuke Fukui <kfukui@labs.fujitsu.com> Sent by: owner-acs-wg@ggf.org 08/09/2005 04:28 PM ZE9 <font size=-1></font> Hi Mike # I removed ogsa-d-wg from recipients since non-subscriber post will # be rejected:-) Thanks for a heads up! So they include a data replication use case in their scope. Did you find any conflicts in their doc, especially between their requirements and our current specification? -Keisuke Michael Behrens wrote:
Albiet a bit late, I just read the use-case document - looks good. With regard to replication, it seems that the ACS-WG might need to consider that portion so I'm also CC'ing this to the ACS team. I presume the use-case is available from the OGSA-D-WG site. Thanks!
Stephen Davey wrote:
Hi everyone, Attached is the beginnings of a list of Data Use Case Scenarios, which also includes the template sub-sections for each use case described.
I have basically taken the original OGSA use case template and merged the "Use Case Situation Analysis" section into the "Summary" section 2.1 and renamed section 2.4 slightly. I have also deleted sections 2.5 & 2.6 since security and performance considerations will be part of the Data Architecture document and would probably have just led to repetition. This then leaves the sections: 2.1 Summary 2.2 Scenarios 2.3 Involved Resources 2.4 Functional Design 2.5 References
Hopefully these sections will be all that is needed for the Data (infrastructure) Use Cases that we have. Any comments can be discussed on Wednesday 15th June.
Cheers, Stephen.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Davey, NextGrid Software Architect, National e-Science Centre, 15 South College St., Edinburgh, EH8 9AA, UK Tel: +44 131 6 509820
Hi Pete and folks, pete@ziu.net wrote:
I read the current architecture draft ogsa-d-wg has up on their site, and there appears to be no conflicts. They do mention non-master replication in the context of "peer-to-peer". I refered to these a little differently in terms of "push", "pull", and "bi-directional".
That's excellent to find there is not conflicts between the specs. Then, we can review what is potentially missing in our spec. Let's see the diagram Sachiko will post to think about this.
Mike, did you find the use cases up on ogsa-d or just through communications with Steven? I am working to continue to add detail to the replication presentation. I am attempting to define a "ReplicaElement" structure which will have properties of a unique instance id, replica id, the actual value of the data, modification and author history, and security constraint data. This one structure should be able to be used to represent a piece of data, a collection, a graph (tree), and a database, for a collection of replicas. Hopefully I can get this out before ogsa face2face to help stimulate the replication topics.
It's good to make sure our spec. doesn't conflict with the data architecture replication. Pete, if you can drill down this a little bit more it will surely be of help to us. You may be able to talk with someone from ogsa-data team at the F2F. Though I see the value of the data replication use case, I think that it is best to leave the detailed normative description for the post version 1. I'm still aiming for the first spec to be submitted at GGF15. To do so, we need to have closure on the draft well ahead of Oct. I think we should be focusing on making this deadline. Designing the ACS dedicated interface for data replication will inevitably involve a lot of work, including review of existing products. Considering that there are bunch of famous data replication products in the market, including SRDF from EMC, and embedded features in the RDBMs, we may not be able to design efficient interface for it. We have plenty of time after version 1 is out to do this. Let's discuss at the call about what we can do for our first draft. -Keisuke
participants (2)
-
Keisuke Fukui -
pete＠ziu.net