- glue-wg - lists.ogf.org

Invitation to OGSA Info Services session
by Donal K. Fellows 02 Sep '08

02 Sep '08

The OGSA working group would like to invite all members of the OGSA Resource Selection Services and GLUE working groups to attend the session at OGF24 on Information Services. Right now, it is scheduled for the first session on Monday morning, but that might change (there's a clash with the RSS session, which we're going to try to get Joel to sort out) so check for yourselves when things are closer to the time. Donal.

2 1

How to Post Comments for the Docs in Public Comments
by Sergio Andreozzi 06 Aug '08

06 Aug '08

Dear all, the official public comment period for the two GLUE WG documents - GLUE Specification v. 2.0 - GLUE v. 2.0 – Reference Realizations to Concrete Data Models will expire the 13 August 2008. You can send comments via the OGF portal by starting from this page: http://www.ogf.org/gf/docs/?public_comment Before submitting your comment, please, check if it is already covered by one of the open issues collected here: http://www.ogf.org/OGF23/materials/1222/GLUE2-ToDo-PublicComment.pdf (this list will be moved shortly in the official comments tracker) Please, disseminate this information to all contexts that might be interested. Kind regards, Sergio -- Sergio Andreozzi INFN-CNAF, Tel: +39 051 609 2860 Viale Berti Pichat, 6/2 Fax: +39 051 609 2746 40126 Bologna (Italy) Web: http://www.cnaf.infn.it/~andreozzi

1 1

Defining various Size metrics
by Paul Millar 19 Jun '08

19 Jun '08

Dear all, I've started a wiki page that tries to give a more precise definition of the space capacity metrics for Store Element and Storage Area objects in Glue v1.3. The current content is very much work-in-progress (and missing lots of detail), but is available from: http://trac.dcache.org/trac.cgi/wiki/GLUE/capacity Comments are appreciated. This may end up being WLCG-specific (have other people adopted Glue v1.3?), but as many of the people on this mailing list have experience with Glue v1.3, I hope you don't mind me posting this here. Cheers, Paul.

2 2

Usage Record v1.0 and GLUE v2.0 Specifications
by Michael Parkin 19 Jun '08

19 Jun '08

Hi, I met some of the GLUE v2.0 authors last week at OGF23 and we agreed that it would be useful to compare the Usage Record specification and proposed GLUE v2.0 specification. This is so that information about completed jobs in the GLUE v2.0 language can be converted to the Usage Record format for accounting/interoperability purposes. Please find attached a document that maps GLUE v2.0 concepts to Usage Record properties. The good news is that most of the Usage Record properties seem to have direct equivalents in the proposed GLUE v2.0 specification. This was the first time I'd read the proposed GLUE v2.0 specification so I may have missed some things in it. Any feedback is welcome. Thanks, Michael.

2 1

Fwd: [SEM-GRD] DAIS RDF activity paper
by Paul Millar 19 Jun '08

19 Jun '08

FYI, This one popped up on my Semantic / RDF radar. I've skimmed through the paper, but haven't read it thoroughly yet, but it does mention GLUE in the paper, although the guy seems to make false statements about XML renderings not having the inheritance characterised (I'm emailing him with corrections). Cheers, Paul. ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: [SEM-GRD] DAIS RDF activity paper Date: Thursday 05 June 2008 From: "Isao KOJIMA" <kojima(a)ni.aist.go.jp> To: dais-wg(a)ogf.org, sem-grd(a)ogf.org Hi DAIS-WG & Semantic-RG people Following link is the preliminary version of the paper presenting our RDF activity in DAIS-Working Group. http://www.ogf.org/OGF_Special_Issue/Accessing_RDF-VF.pdf The paper is to appear in the OGF special issue of "Concurrency and Computation" journal and I hope this paper will help you to understand our RDF activity. Quetsions and comments are always welcome. Regards Isao ----------------------------------------------------- Isao Kojima Leader, Service-ware Research Group Information Technology Research Institute AIST,Japan -- sem-grd mailing list sem-grd(a)ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/sem-grd -------------------------------------------------------

2 1

DN definitions
by Timo Baur 05 Jun '08

05 Jun '08

Hello, in the public comment version of GLUE 2.0, two kinds of DNs (Distinguished Names) with different delimiters are specified. Section 16.3.8 defines as DNs: "X509 uses a X500 namespace represented as several Relative Domain-Names (RDNs) concatenated by forward-slashes". A slash-separated DN notation is also used in the examples throughout the document. I was not able to find such a definition in the X509 spec. As X509 stay rather general, are you sure it implements a forward-slash notation ? Section 17.4., in contrast, defines a DataType DN_T as a RFC 4515 Distinguished name. RFC 4515 says "There is zero or more relative distinguished names, separated by <COMMA>, for a distinguished name." I propose to either - specify both delimiters, fix the X509 citation and state clearly in which cases which notation is to be used, or - decide for the RFC4515 notation (comma separated), which seems to be (better) standardized and rewrite the examples. Also at the beginning of section 16.3.8, the sentence "It must start [...]" (state ?) should be improved. ciao, Timo Dipl-Inf. Timo Baur Leibniz Rechenzentrum Kommunikationsnetze/Netzplanung/D-MON Boltzmannstr. 1 D-85748 Garching Telefon +49 89 35831-8729 Fax +49 89 35831-5729 timo.baur(a)lrz-muenchen.de

2 1

Re: [glue-wg] More comments on the draft spec.
by Viljoen, MJ (Matthew) 04 Jun '08

04 Jun '08

Hi, Here are my main queries for the version of the GLUE 2.0 document as it stands. My apologies if any of these issues have already been raised - I have so far not been able to spend time reviewing the evolution of this document as much as I would have liked. Referring to the document: ogf-glue-2_draft-41_WG-last-call.doc: Section 6. 6. Conceptual Model of the Storage Service I think the first sentence referring to "specializations" could be reworded - it's ambiguous for me what the word means in this context. Section 17.24 AppEnvState_t For the pendingremoval description, do we really need to say "as soon as possible"? Or will "is due to be removed" do instead? I think perhaps giving indications of time is out of context here. Finally, in a number of objects there is a URL property for an endpoint location. The multiplicity is defined as 1. I can imagine the case where it may be desirable to define more than one URL, for maybe load-sharing or failover services. Matt

1 0

updates before OGF 23
by Sergio Andreozzi 30 May '08

30 May '08

Dear all, some update about GLUE-related topics: 1. the forge portal is back at work; the public comment process should officially start next week after the GFSG F2F meeting (I will send an email to confirm it) I've updated the wiki with the links to the tracker items related to the submission to the OGF Editor 2. next week, the important event: OGF 23 for those attending OGF, please mark your agenda with the following sessions: 2.1 Group Sessions for any of this sessions, mail me in advance if you want to present any GLUE-related activity (especially for the discussion and implementation sessions) Wednesday GLUE 2.0 - Overview http://ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/index.php?id=1221 Thursday GLUE 2.0 - Discussion http://ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/index.php?id=1222 GLUE 2.0 - Implementation http://ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/index.php?id=1223 2.2. Joint Group Sessions Wednesday BES/HPC, JSDL and GLUE Profiling http://ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/index.php?id=1274 this is an important session to start discussing how to profile the usage of GLUE with the other specifications related to job management 2.3 Tutorial on implementing standard for managing computing activities (organized by OGF-Europe with the collaboration of KnowArc, EGEE, UNICORE and PSNC) Thursday http://ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/index.php?id=1256 http://ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/index.php?id=1317 http://ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/index.php?id=1369 this is a unique chance to learn about core OGF specs and the current adoption activity. Implementors will present both the specifications and status of their implementations. Looking to meet several of you in Barcelona, Sergio -- Sergio Andreozzi INFN-CNAF, Tel: +39 051 609 2860 Viale Berti Pichat, 6/2 Fax: +39 051 609 2746 40126 Bologna (Italy) Web: http://www.cnaf.infn.it/~andreozzi

1 0

GLUE 2.0 Spec and Rendering documents submitted for public comments
by Sergio Andreozzi 20 May '08

20 May '08

Dear all, I'm happy to announce that we submitted 2 documents for public comment. From the feedback of the last call, we have identified 195 autonomous comments. They are collected together with the answer in GLUE2-WGLastCall-Q&A.doc. We have resolved 135 comments, while 60 of them have been postponed for resolution during the public comment process. Among the 60 issues collected in the document GLUE2-ToDo-PublicComment.doc, several refer to editorial changes, while some requires some discussion about the model. The title of the submitted documents for starting the public comment process are: - GLUE Specification v. 2.0 (the conceptual model of GLUE 2.0) - GLUE v. 2.0 – Reference Realizations to Concrete Data Models (realization in XML Schema/LDAP Schema/SQL) You can download a compressed archive containing all the documents at the following URL: http://www.cnaf.infn.it/~andreozzi/doc/GLUE2_0_Public_Comment.zip content: - GLUE2-ToDo-PublicComment.doc/pdf - GLUE2-WGLastCall-Q&A.doc/pdf - ogf-glue-2-rendering.doc/pdf - ogf-glue-2_public_comment.doc/pdf - ogf-glue-2_public_comment_with_track_changes.doc/pdf When the forge portal will be more stable, I will upload them in the document repository as well. The public comment period is officially expected to start just before the next OGF. We need to wait for the confirmation by the OGF Editor. I wish to thank all of you for the contribution to this important milestone. Kind regards, Sergio -- Sergio Andreozzi INFN-CNAF, Tel: +39 051 609 2860 Viale Berti Pichat, 6/2 Fax: +39 051 609 2746 40126 Bologna (Italy) Web: http://www.cnaf.infn.it/~andreozzi

1 0

More comments on the draft spec.
by Paul Millar 20 May '08

20 May '08

Hi all, Some more comments. A general comment: To answer some questions, multiple passes through the info-system may be required. For example, see "Which sites have SEs which support the gsidcap protocol?" within Stephen's page, here: http://egee-uig.web.cern.ch/egee-uig/production_pages/Advancedldapsearch.ht… With LDAP, the object's RDN is often built from its ID or LocalID. So, fields derived from an object's RDN (such as GlueChunkKey and GlueForeignKey) will be dependent on LocalID (or ID). I believe Glue currently makes no statement about how long LocalID or ID should remain constant for the same object: the persistence of the LocalID value. Although silly, I believe it would currently be acceptable to generate fresh random LocalIDs for each object every time data is published, provided all references were updated at the same time. However, if one uses the RDN (for example, by following a GlueForeignKey value in a separate query), there is a tacit assumption that the RDN of the target object will not change (or, at least, that it is unlikely to change for the period between successive queries). This is only true if the ID or LocalID used to build the RDN doesn't change. So, it seems we have a requirement for IDs or LocalIDs to be persistent over time. This should be stated somewhere, probably in section 3 (General Comments). Some more comments: *** Page 12 "activity" is misspelt in the description of the Associate End for Share.LocalID *** Page 28 When providing a diagram representing the specialisation of entities (e.g., Fig. 3) the inherited associations are not shown. Could these be added somehow (e.g., within the Main Entities section)? Also, it isn't immediately clear that the entities in "Storage Entities" are the same as those in "Storage Entities - Inheritance". Could this identification be included in the diagram? *** Page 30 It's a little unclear why we have both StorageAccessProtocol and StorageEndpoint since StorageEndpoint can represent access protocols. The StorageAccessProtocol seems to be only of use when talking about the CE-SE-bind objects. If so, perhaps the description of StorageAccessProtocol could be updated to mention this. There's still the question why Capability is a required property of StorageEndpoint: this is an echo of my previous point about this, suggesting that it is optional in Endpoint or simply removed and added to a new subclass of Endpoint. *** Page 31 I feel we should mention in the description of StorageShare that it is: A UserDomain's view of [a utilization target for a set of StorageResources ...] This may not be obvious, especially as the UserDomain--StorageShare association is currently not shown on the Storage entities diagram (Fig.3) as it's inherited. *** Page 33 StorageResource: The Latency is the maximum latency under normal operating conditions, not the maximum under any circumstance. Cheers, Paul.

3 4