Hi Steve, I completely agree. I was hoping that the reference model group would let us know what the resource, service, site etc. were and the relationship between them. If they do not do this for use we will just have to define what we think they are. Laurence Fisher, SM (Steve) wrote:
Hi,
I still have reservations about the resource, service, site etc entities.
The share expresses the relationship between resource and service. I don't think we need "element" any more.
From the point of view of service discovery we need to find a service which has a share with a policy expressing that a particular VO has some resources. Is all VO specific policy in the share?
If we get rid of element both services and resources might need a relationship to a site - in which case we should try to define precisely what that relationship means. It may be different for a resource and a service
Should I presume that a Computing service is a service (inheritance). If this is the case we need to think at some stage just how this will be realised.
Steve _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg