Hi, Grimoires, the OMII-UK service discovery implementation, currently supports GLUE 1.3, but we wish to update this to support an XML schema rendering of GLUE2. Given that there isn't currently an up-to-date XML schema for GLUE2 from the WG, we were wondering how best to proceed. We're aware that there is an XML schema developed by TeraGrid - would this be an appropriate way forward until one is developed within the WG? Any advice gratefully received! Best Regards, Steve Crouch -- Dr Stephen Crouch, Software Architect, OMII-UK, School of Electronics and Computer Science, Room 4067, Level 4, Building 32, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 8787 EMail: s.crouch@omii.ac.uk Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 3045 WWW: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~stc
We were in the same position as you are on TeraGrid, which is why we defined our own schema. If you'd like to use the TeraGrid schema, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about it. Also feel free to take it and modify it as you like. Of course, the TeraGrid GLUE 2 XML Schema isn't a standard and I can't say how similar it will be to an official OGF GLUE 2 XML Schema. In fact, one warning I'd give about the TeraGrid schema is that we chose a flat hierarchy of XML elements in that schema (e.g. ComputeActivity is a sibling of ComputeShare instead of a child of ComputeShare). The last discussions I remember seeing on the GLUE working group list seemed to have more people favoring a deeper hierarchy... Warren Steve Crouch wrote:
Hi,
Grimoires, the OMII-UK service discovery implementation, currently supports GLUE 1.3, but we wish to update this to support an XML schema rendering of GLUE2. Given that there isn't currently an up-to-date XML schema for GLUE2 from the WG, we were wondering how best to proceed. We're aware that there is an XML schema developed by TeraGrid - would this be an appropriate way forward until one is developed within the WG?
Any advice gratefully received!
Best Regards,
Steve Crouch
Dear colleagues, Whether you choose a flat structure or a hierarchy, the important fact is that you query the system using the Foreign Keys instead of the structure itself, so we ensure compatibility between the different data systems implemented. Regards, David On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Warren Smith <wsmith@tacc.utexas.edu> wrote:
We were in the same position as you are on TeraGrid, which is why we defined our own schema. If you'd like to use the TeraGrid schema, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about it. Also feel free to take it and modify it as you like.
Of course, the TeraGrid GLUE 2 XML Schema isn't a standard and I can't say how similar it will be to an official OGF GLUE 2 XML Schema. In fact, one warning I'd give about the TeraGrid schema is that we chose a flat hierarchy of XML elements in that schema (e.g. ComputeActivity is a sibling of ComputeShare instead of a child of ComputeShare). The last discussions I remember seeing on the GLUE working group list seemed to have more people favoring a deeper hierarchy...
Warren
Steve Crouch wrote:
Hi,
Grimoires, the OMII-UK service discovery implementation, currently supports GLUE 1.3, but we wish to update this to support an XML schema rendering of GLUE2. Given that there isn't currently an up-to-date XML schema for GLUE2 from the WG, we were wondering how best to proceed. We're aware that there is an XML schema developed by TeraGrid - would this be an appropriate way forward until one is developed within the WG?
Any advice gratefully received!
Best Regards,
Steve Crouch
_______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
-- David Horat Software Engineer – IT/GD – Grid Deployment Group CERN – European Organization for Nuclear Research » Where the web was born Address: 1211 Geneva - Switzerland, Office: 28/R-003 Phone +41 22 76 77996 Fax +41 22 76 68178 (fax to email service) Web: http://cern.ch/horat Web: http://davidhorat.com/ Profile: http://linkedin.com/in/davidhorat
glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org
[mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Warren Smith said: Of course, the TeraGrid GLUE 2 XML Schema isn't a standard and I can't say how similar it will be to an official OGF GLUE 2 XML Schema.
Well, this is supposed to be a community effort so it should be possible for you to contribute to the definition of the official XML rendering ... however personally I'm not involved in that so I can't comment directly.
In fact, one warning I'd give about the TeraGrid schema is that we chose a flat hierarchy of XML elements in that schema (e.g. ComputeActivity is a sibling of ComputeShare instead of a child of ComputeShare). The last discussions I remember seeing on the GLUE working group list seemed to have more people favoring a deeper hierarchy...
I think Nordugrid favoured that. However, for the LDAP rendering we tried to keep the abstract schema properties as much as possible - LDAP obviously forces you to have a tree, but the objects are all linked via foreign keys and unqiue IDs so you don't need the tree to navigate. In that case you could potentially restructure the tree without changing any queries. If XML follows the same kind of route you could even do joint queries across representations. Stephen -- Scanned by iCritical.
I would like to second Stevens comment. Those that need XML should try to define an agreed rendering. We should probably start with the Teragrid one as a baseline and go from there. If anyone thinks that there are any issues that need discussing we can always collect them and have a phone conference to sort them out. For the LDAP rendering it only took a could of calls. Is there anyone who is motivated enough and has enough time to lead this effort? Laurence stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk wrote:
glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org
[mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Warren Smith said: Of course, the TeraGrid GLUE 2 XML Schema isn't a standard and I can't say how similar it will be to an official OGF GLUE 2 XML
Schema.
Well, this is supposed to be a community effort so it should be possible for you to contribute to the definition of the official XML rendering ... however personally I'm not involved in that so I can't comment directly.
In fact, one warning I'd give about the TeraGrid schema is that we chose a flat hierarchy of XML elements in that schema (e.g. ComputeActivity is a sibling of ComputeShare instead of a child of ComputeShare). The last discussions I remember seeing on the GLUE working group list seemed to have more people favoring a deeper hierarchy...
I think Nordugrid favoured that. However, for the LDAP rendering we tried to keep the abstract schema properties as much as possible - LDAP obviously forces you to have a tree, but the objects are all linked via foreign keys and unqiue IDs so you don't need the tree to navigate. In that case you could potentially restructure the tree without changing any queries. If XML follows the same kind of route you could even do joint queries across representations.
Stephen
Dear All, The completion of the glue2 specification in terms of updating (re-defining?) the renderings is still a pending issue. We have released the model but not yet the renderings. I am happy to see that few groups started to work in this direction. Let me point you to our wiki page where the different attempts are collected: http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.glue-wg/wiki/GLUE2XM... (linked from main glue wiki under Realizations to Concrete Data models) Within nordugrid we have also worked a bit on the xml schema, more or less updated it to match the final specification. You can find the nordugrid version of the glue 2 xml schema here: http://svn.nordugrid.org/trac/nordugrid/browser/arc1/trunk/doc/tech_doc/info... and here is an example xml document based on that schema describing nordugrid resources: http://svn.nordugrid.org/trac/nordugrid/browser/arc1/trunk/doc/tech_doc/info... Before the summer i started a discussion with Sergio about the xml rendering update, we wanted to start/speed up the rendering work a bit. Unfortunately, lots of other thing slowed down the idea. All in all, I agree with Stephen that it has to be a community effort. I guess it is time to schedule for phone calls related to the xml rendering. bye, Balazs Konya -- Balázs Kónya NorduGrid Collaboration http://www.nordugrid.org Lund University balazs.konya@hep.lu.se High Energy Physics phone: +46 46 222 8049 BOX 118, S - 221 00 LUND, Sweden fax: +46 46 222 4015
glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org
[mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Balazs Konya said: The completion of the glue2 specification in terms of updating (re-defining?) the renderings is still a pending issue. We have released the model but not yet the renderings.
The LDAP rendering is now done, although perhaps not fully documented, and we're close to having a first attempt at info providers for it, so that may help the XML effort somewhat. Stephen -- Scanned by iCritical.
Hello Balazs et al, I apologize for the long silence on this list. We'll try to finalize the XML Schema rendering by the end of the year. As far as I remember the arguments pro/con the two versions of the schema were: 1. Sergio/Balazs: hierarchical version pro: better readability, easier to query based on branch selection, exploits hierarchical nature of XML in natural way con: aggregating info from different info providers needs more care 2. TeraGrid/Warren: flat version pro: easier to aggregate bits of XML from different info provider con: less readable, does not exploit hierarch nature of XML in theory there is no reason for not having both; the important is that all the classes/attributes and relationships are represented; nevertheless, having one version improves chances for data exchange without further processing. At this point in time, probably it is better to go ahead with both and collect the experience. Based on this, adopters will make their on choice. Cheers, Sergio On 02/ott/09, at 17:27, Balazs Konya wrote:
Dear All,
The completion of the glue2 specification in terms of updating (re- defining?) the renderings is still a pending issue. We have released the model but not yet the renderings.
I am happy to see that few groups started to work in this direction.
Let me point you to our wiki page where the different attempts are collected:
http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.glue-wg/wiki/GLUE2XM...
(linked from main glue wiki under Realizations to Concrete Data models)
Within nordugrid we have also worked a bit on the xml schema, more or less updated it to match the final specification. You can find the nordugrid version of the glue 2 xml schema here:
http://svn.nordugrid.org/trac/nordugrid/browser/arc1/trunk/doc/tech_doc/info...
and here is an example xml document based on that schema describing nordugrid resources:
http://svn.nordugrid.org/trac/nordugrid/browser/arc1/trunk/doc/tech_doc/info...
Before the summer i started a discussion with Sergio about the xml rendering update, we wanted to start/speed up the rendering work a bit. Unfortunately, lots of other thing slowed down the idea.
All in all, I agree with Stephen that it has to be a community effort. I guess it is time to schedule for phone calls related to the xml rendering.
bye, Balazs Konya
-- Balázs Kónya
NorduGrid Collaboration http://www.nordugrid.org
Lund University balazs.konya@hep.lu.se High Energy Physics phone: +46 46 222 8049 BOX 118, S - 221 00 LUND, Sweden fax: +46 46 222 4015 _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
Hi Sergio, GLUE-group, what is the current status of the XML renderings? AFAICS, there has not been much activity after OGF28 - is that a sign of lacking interest and/or resources to finish the schema, or is there work done in the background? I guess the same question holds for the other planned renderings (LDAP, others?) - but several groups at OGF, in particular JSDL, would greatly benefit from a normative GLUE-2.0 XML schema. Greeting from OGF29, your friendly AD. Quoting [Sergio Andreozzi] (Oct 15 2009):
Hello Balazs et al,
I apologize for the long silence on this list. We'll try to finalize the XML Schema rendering by the end of the year.
As far as I remember the arguments pro/con the two versions of the schema were:
1. Sergio/Balazs: hierarchical version pro: better readability, easier to query based on branch selection, exploits hierarchical nature of XML in natural way con: aggregating info from different info providers needs more care
2. TeraGrid/Warren: flat version pro: easier to aggregate bits of XML from different info provider con: less readable, does not exploit hierarch nature of XML
in theory there is no reason for not having both; the important is that all the classes/attributes and relationships are represented; nevertheless, having one version improves chances for data exchange without further processing. At this point in time, probably it is better to go ahead with both and collect the experience. Based on this, adopters will make their on choice.
Cheers, Sergio
On 02/ott/09, at 17:27, Balazs Konya wrote:
Dear All,
The completion of the glue2 specification in terms of updating (re- defining?) the renderings is still a pending issue. We have released the model but not yet the renderings.
I am happy to see that few groups started to work in this direction.
Let me point you to our wiki page where the different attempts are collected:
http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.glue-wg/wiki/GLUE2XM...
(linked from main glue wiki under Realizations to Concrete Data models)
Within nordugrid we have also worked a bit on the xml schema, more or less updated it to match the final specification. You can find the nordugrid version of the glue 2 xml schema here:
http://svn.nordugrid.org/trac/nordugrid/browser/arc1/trunk/doc/tech_doc/info...
and here is an example xml document based on that schema describing nordugrid resources:
http://svn.nordugrid.org/trac/nordugrid/browser/arc1/trunk/doc/tech_doc/info...
Before the summer i started a discussion with Sergio about the xml rendering update, we wanted to start/speed up the rendering work a bit. Unfortunately, lots of other thing slowed down the idea.
All in all, I agree with Stephen that it has to be a community effort. I guess it is time to schedule for phone calls related to the xml rendering.
bye, Balazs Konya
-- Balázs Kónya
NorduGrid Collaboration http://www.nordugrid.org
Lund University balazs.konya@hep.lu.se High Energy Physics phone: +46 46 222 8049 BOX 118, S - 221 00 LUND, Sweden fax: +46 46 222 4015 _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
_______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
-- Nothing is ever easy.
glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org
[mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Andre Merzky said: I guess the same question holds for the other planned renderings (LDAP, others?) - but several groups at OGF, in particular JSDL, would greatly benefit from a normative GLUE-2.0 XML schema.
I also haven't heard anything more about XML, but the LDAP rendering is now implemented in the gLite BDII and we are starting to get publishers in the production grid. Stephen -- Scanned by iCritical.
Quoting [stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk] (Jun 23 2010):
glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org
[mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Andre Merzky said: I guess the same question holds for the other planned renderings (LDAP, others?) - but several groups at OGF, in particular JSDL, would greatly benefit from a normative GLUE-2.0 XML schema.
I also haven't heard anything more about XML, but the LDAP rendering is now implemented in the gLite BDII and we are starting to get publishers in the production grid.
That is great news :-) Is there hope that this will trigger the LDAP binding document completion sometime soon? Best, Andre. -- Nothing is ever easy.
Andre Merzky [mailto:andre@merzky.net] said:
That is great news :-) Is there hope that this will trigger the LDAP binding document completion sometime soon?
Erm ... well, I suppose there's no reason it can't be finished, other than the usual one of finding time :) I don't know if Laurence has any plans, but I guess I could at least look at it and see what can be improved. Stephen -- Scanned by iCritical.
From my perspective, we are focusing on rolloing out the LDAP version across the WLCG infrastructure and the XML rendering is not required for us in the medium term. Others are interested in the XML rendering, but I do not know the status. Laurence On 06/23/2010 03:42 PM, stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk wrote:
Andre Merzky [mailto:andre@merzky.net] said:
That is great news :-) Is there hope that this will trigger the LDAP binding document completion sometime soon?
Erm ... well, I suppose there's no reason it can't be finished, other than the usual one of finding time :) I don't know if Laurence has any plans, but I guess I could at least look at it and see what can be improved.
Stephen
Andre Merzky [mailto:andre@merzky.net] said:
That is great news :-) Is there hope that this will trigger the LDAP binding document completion sometime soon?
I've just uploaded a new draft: http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/doc15518?nav=1 I've added quite a lot of detail explaining the rationale for our decisions, which might be helpful for people looking at the xml rendering. The document probably still needs some polishing, but I think the content is basically there. Comments welcome ... Stephen -- Scanned by iCritical.
hi Andre, group, On 2010-06-23 14:52, Andre Merzky wrote:
Hi Sergio, GLUE-group,
what is the current status of the XML renderings? AFAICS, there has not been much activity after OGF28 - is that a sign of lacking interest and/or resources to finish the schema, or is there work done in the background?
I guess the same question holds for the other planned renderings (LDAP, others?) - but several groups at OGF, in particular JSDL, would greatly benefit from a normative GLUE-2.0 XML schema.
Greeting from OGF29,
your friendly AD.
The interest is there, it is just the time which was not available. Laurence gave already a reply related to the LDAP part. Concerning the XML rendering, couple of weeks ago, before the OGF29, i met Sergio and back then we were very optimistic and committed to pick up the XML rendering thread again and come with a ready-to-submit version by the Brussels OGF30, the latest. All in all, i except some real work to start after the summer holidays. The group should release at least the LDAP and XML rendering document still this year :) cheers, Balazs Konya
Hi Folks, The current xml binding tools such as XMLBeans and/or JAXB2 do not generate the correct xml instance from the current glue2 xsd. the generated document from these tools is identical (see below): 1. <Domains xmlns="http://schemas.ogf.org/glue/2008/05/spec_2.0_d42_r01"> 2. <AdminDomain xmlns=""/> 3. </Domains> However the following attributes should be added to avoid mishandling of the namespaces: elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified" whereas the generated instance document looks like, 1. <Domains xmlns="http://schemas.ogf.org/glue/2008/05/spec_2.0_d42_r01" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"> 2. <AdminDomain> 3. <Services /> 4. </AdminDomain> 5. </Domains> Any comments? Shiraz On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Balazs Konya <balazs.konya@hep.lu.se>wrote:
hi Andre, group,
On 2010-06-23 14:52, Andre Merzky wrote:
Hi Sergio, GLUE-group,
what is the current status of the XML renderings? AFAICS, there has not been much activity after OGF28 - is that a sign of lacking interest and/or resources to finish the schema, or is there work done in the background?
I guess the same question holds for the other planned renderings (LDAP, others?) - but several groups at OGF, in particular JSDL, would greatly benefit from a normative GLUE-2.0 XML schema.
Greeting from OGF29,
your friendly AD.
The interest is there, it is just the time which was not available.
Laurence gave already a reply related to the LDAP part.
Concerning the XML rendering, couple of weeks ago, before the OGF29, i met Sergio and back then we were very optimistic and committed to pick up the XML rendering thread again and come with a ready-to-submit version by the Brussels OGF30, the latest.
All in all, i except some real work to start after the summer holidays.
The group should release at least the LDAP and XML rendering document still this year :)
cheers, Balazs Konya _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH 52425 Juelich Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498 Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDirig Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender), Dr. Ulrich Krafft (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt, Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- ========================================== Ahmed Shiraz Memon Jülich Supercomputing Centre (JSC) Institute of Advanced Simulation Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Germany Phone: +49 2461 61 6899 Fax: +49 2461 61 6656 Email: a.memon@fz-juelich.de ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH 52425 Juelich Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498 Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir'in Baerbel Brumme-Bothe Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender), Dr. Ulrich Krafft (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr. Harald Bolt, Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Balasz, Laurence, thanks for the update on the LDAP and XML rendering documents! I am looking forward to OGF30 then :-) Best wishes, Andre. Quoting [Balazs Konya] (Jul 05 2010):
hi Andre, group,
On 2010-06-23 14:52, Andre Merzky wrote:
Hi Sergio, GLUE-group,
what is the current status of the XML renderings? AFAICS, there has not been much activity after OGF28 - is that a sign of lacking interest and/or resources to finish the schema, or is there work done in the background?
I guess the same question holds for the other planned renderings (LDAP, others?) - but several groups at OGF, in particular JSDL, would greatly benefit from a normative GLUE-2.0 XML schema.
Greeting from OGF29,
your friendly AD.
The interest is there, it is just the time which was not available.
Laurence gave already a reply related to the LDAP part.
Concerning the XML rendering, couple of weeks ago, before the OGF29, i met Sergio and back then we were very optimistic and committed to pick up the XML rendering thread again and come with a ready-to-submit version by the Brussels OGF30, the latest.
All in all, i except some real work to start after the summer holidays.
The group should release at least the LDAP and XML rendering document still this year :)
cheers, Balazs Konya _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
-- Nothing is ever easy.
Greetings Laurence, I would like to see us in the TeraGrid contribute to the development of the official OGF GLUE2 XML rendering (or renderings). Please let Warren and I know what we can do in that respect. Thanks, JP On Oct 2, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Laurence Field wrote:
I would like to second Stevens comment. Those that need XML should try to define an agreed rendering. We should probably start with the Teragrid one as a baseline and go from there. If anyone thinks that there are any issues that need discussing we can always collect them and have a phone conference to sort them out. For the LDAP rendering it only took a could of calls. Is there anyone who is motivated enough and has enough time to lead this effort?
Laurence
stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk wrote:
glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org
[mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Warren Smith said: Of course, the TeraGrid GLUE 2 XML Schema isn't a standard and I can't say how similar it will be to an official OGF GLUE 2 XML
Schema.
Well, this is supposed to be a community effort so it should be possible for you to contribute to the definition of the official XML rendering ... however personally I'm not involved in that so I can't comment directly.
In fact, one warning I'd give about the TeraGrid schema is that we chose a flat hierarchy of XML elements in that schema (e.g. ComputeActivity is a sibling of ComputeShare instead of a child of ComputeShare). The last discussions I remember seeing on the GLUE working group list seemed to have more people favoring a deeper hierarchy...
I think Nordugrid favoured that. However, for the LDAP rendering we tried to keep the abstract schema properties as much as possible - LDAP obviously forces you to have a tree, but the objects are all linked via foreign keys and unqiue IDs so you don't need the tree to navigate. In that case you could potentially restructure the tree without changing any queries. If XML follows the same kind of route you could even do joint queries across representations.
Stephen
_______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
Hi Warren, I found your GLUE2 xml schema at http://software.teragrid.org/pacman/ctss4/glue2/glue2-1.0.0-r1/teragrid_glue.... Is this the latest one? Are there some xml data using this schema? How is the deployment of your schema in TeraGrid? Is it used by TeraGrid information service to describe resources across TeraGrid? Many thanks in advance! Cheers, Weijian 2009/10/2 Warren Smith <wsmith@tacc.utexas.edu>:
We were in the same position as you are on TeraGrid, which is why we defined our own schema. If you'd like to use the TeraGrid schema, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about it. Also feel free to take it and modify it as you like.
Of course, the TeraGrid GLUE 2 XML Schema isn't a standard and I can't say how similar it will be to an official OGF GLUE 2 XML Schema. In fact, one warning I'd give about the TeraGrid schema is that we chose a flat hierarchy of XML elements in that schema (e.g. ComputeActivity is a sibling of ComputeShare instead of a child of ComputeShare). The last discussions I remember seeing on the GLUE working group list seemed to have more people favoring a deeper hierarchy...
Warren
Steve Crouch wrote:
Hi,
Grimoires, the OMII-UK service discovery implementation, currently supports GLUE 1.3, but we wish to update this to support an XML schema rendering of GLUE2. Given that there isn't currently an up-to-date XML schema for GLUE2 from the WG, we were wondering how best to proceed. We're aware that there is an XML schema developed by TeraGrid - would this be an appropriate way forward until one is developed within the WG?
Any advice gratefully received!
Best Regards,
Steve Crouch
_______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
Sorry for the slow response - I'm on travel right now. That is the latest version of the schema - we haven't had to update it in a while. Here is a web page (thanks JP) to see some XML in this schema: http://info.teragrid.org:8080/webmds/webmds?info=tgissched&xmlSource.tgissched.param.xpathQuery=.//ctss:V4glue2RP Our GLUE 2 deployment focuses on compute information and is being used for metascheduling (right now this just means creating Condor class ads). It is not required that TeraGrid sites deploy the GLUE 2 information gatherers, but even with that, it's been deployed on 8 or 9 of the TeraGrid clusters. Warren Weijian Fang wrote:
Hi Warren,
I found your GLUE2 xml schema at http://software.teragrid.org/pacman/ctss4/glue2/glue2-1.0.0-r1/teragrid_glue.... Is this the latest one? Are there some xml data using this schema?
How is the deployment of your schema in TeraGrid? Is it used by TeraGrid information service to describe resources across TeraGrid? Many thanks in advance!
Cheers,
Weijian
2009/10/2 Warren Smith <wsmith@tacc.utexas.edu>:
We were in the same position as you are on TeraGrid, which is why we defined our own schema. If you'd like to use the TeraGrid schema, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about it. Also feel free to take it and modify it as you like.
Of course, the TeraGrid GLUE 2 XML Schema isn't a standard and I can't say how similar it will be to an official OGF GLUE 2 XML Schema. In fact, one warning I'd give about the TeraGrid schema is that we chose a flat hierarchy of XML elements in that schema (e.g. ComputeActivity is a sibling of ComputeShare instead of a child of ComputeShare). The last discussions I remember seeing on the GLUE working group list seemed to have more people favoring a deeper hierarchy...
Warren
Steve Crouch wrote:
Hi,
Grimoires, the OMII-UK service discovery implementation, currently supports GLUE 1.3, but we wish to update this to support an XML schema rendering of GLUE2. Given that there isn't currently an up-to-date XML schema for GLUE2 from the WG, we were wondering how best to proceed. We're aware that there is an XML schema developed by TeraGrid - would this be an appropriate way forward until one is developed within the WG?
Any advice gratefully received!
Best Regards,
Steve Crouch
_______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
participants (11)
-
Andre Merzky -
Balazs Konya -
David Horat -
JP Navarro -
Laurence Field -
Sergio Andreozzi -
Shiraz Memon -
stephen.burke＠stfc.ac.uk -
Steve Crouch -
Warren Smith -
Weijian Fang