the idea of the service description
terms was to enable the description of a service, potentially from different
perspectives by using multiple service description terms. The service name
should help the specifiers which term belongs to which service, not just
a target to point guarantee terms to. Guarantee terms are a good means
to define those aspects of a service whose compliance you want to monitor
individually, not summararily as part of the service. In the given example,
we may interpret that both parties are happy if the service is performed,
without specifying detailed guarantees.
Whether this is realistic is another
question. The examples are mainly to illustrate the syntax and cannot be
analyzed too thoroughly for their semantic content. What I really mean
is we are lacking a good primer ...
Heiko
-----
Heiko Ludwig, Dr. rer. pol.
IBM TJ Watson Research Center, PO Box 704, Yorktown, NY, 10598
hludwig@us.ibm.com, tel. +1 914 784 7160, mob. +1 646 236 9453
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/h/hludwig/
"Tiziana Ferrari"
<tiziana.ferrari@cnaf.infn.it> Sent by: owner-graap-wg@ggf.org
01/21/2005 04:49 AM
To
<graap-wg@gridforum.org>
cc
Subject
[graap-wg] question regarding
offer example (pp. 48-51)
Hi all,
I have a question regarding the offer example appears in the appendix of
the
ws-agreement specification (latest version of the document).
In that example there's a service description term that refers to service
name "ComputeJob2", but the service scope of the guarantees all
point to
"ComputeJob1". I don't see the need of having service names that
never
appear in at least one guarantee term scope. Could you explain the meaning
of this?
Thank you in advance,
Tiziana
********************************************
Tiziana Ferrari Tiziana.Ferrari@cnaf.infn.it
Italian National Inst. for Nuclear Physics / CNAF