Dear GRAAP members, we have seen in various discussions that there seems to be a frequent desire for a standardized term language to express when a service shall be delivered. Examples are: - Making a hardware reservation of a cluster for interactive use - Co-allocation of resources of various types (hardware, network, licenses, ...) - Defining a deadline for the completion of a job We have had a discussion about this in Banff after which Oliver and I have prepared a proposal for a Time Constraints Profile for WS-Agreement. This proposal has been uploaded here: https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15832?nav=1 We would be eager to hear your comments. - Is the proposal clear? - Is the proposal complete? - Does the proposal satisfy your needs? Best regards, Dominic
Hi Dominic, Would you see fit to augment this also with some construct for defining periodic durations? E.g. to be able to say "every day, 9am-5pm", or things like that. Best regards, Costas On 7 Dec 2009, at 13:43, Dominic Battre wrote:
Dear GRAAP members,
we have seen in various discussions that there seems to be a frequent desire for a standardized term language to express when a service shall be delivered.
Examples are:
- Making a hardware reservation of a cluster for interactive use
- Co-allocation of resources of various types (hardware, network, licenses, ...)
- Defining a deadline for the completion of a job
We have had a discussion about this in Banff after which Oliver and I have prepared a proposal for a Time Constraints Profile for WS-Agreement. This proposal has been uploaded here:
https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15832?nav=1
We would be eager to hear your comments.
- Is the proposal clear?
- Is the proposal complete?
- Does the proposal satisfy your needs?
Best regards,
Dominic -- graap-wg mailing list graap-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/graap-wg
Hello Costas, it would certainly be a possible extension. The question is do we want it? If we end up translating ical to XML we come to a specification that is extremely powerful but very difficult to implement. Our idea was to use the simplest language that would be useful. Therefore, I would like to ask you and the others: Do you need something like "every day, 9am-5pm"? Best regards, Dominic Constantinos (Costas) Kotsokalis wrote:
Hi Dominic,
Would you see fit to augment this also with some construct for defining periodic durations? E.g. to be able to say "every day, 9am-5pm", or things like that.
Best regards,
Costas
On 7 Dec 2009, at 13:43, Dominic Battre wrote:
Dear GRAAP members,
we have seen in various discussions that there seems to be a frequent desire for a standardized term language to express when a service shall be delivered.
Examples are:
- Making a hardware reservation of a cluster for interactive use
- Co-allocation of resources of various types (hardware, network, licenses, ...)
- Defining a deadline for the completion of a job
We have had a discussion about this in Banff after which Oliver and I have prepared a proposal for a Time Constraints Profile for WS-Agreement. This proposal has been uploaded here:
https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15832?nav=1
We would be eager to hear your comments.
- Is the proposal clear?
- Is the proposal complete?
- Does the proposal satisfy your needs?
Best regards,
Dominic -- graap-wg mailing list graap-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/graap-wg
Hello Dominic, I think, the language itself is not the big issue. I can well imagine examples for periodic tasks ... and that you want a "(co-)reservation" well in advance. I believe, the difficult part is to implement the negotiation part in an elegant way. Best regards, Thomas Dominic Battre wrote:
Hello Costas,
it would certainly be a possible extension.
The question is do we want it? If we end up translating ical to XML we come to a specification that is extremely powerful but very difficult to implement.
Our idea was to use the simplest language that would be useful. Therefore, I would like to ask you and the others: Do you need something like "every day, 9am-5pm"?
Best regards,
Dominic
Constantinos (Costas) Kotsokalis wrote:
Hi Dominic,
Would you see fit to augment this also with some construct for defining periodic durations? E.g. to be able to say "every day, 9am-5pm", or things like that.
Best regards,
Costas
On 7 Dec 2009, at 13:43, Dominic Battre wrote:
Dear GRAAP members,
we have seen in various discussions that there seems to be a frequent desire for a standardized term language to express when a service shall be delivered.
Examples are:
- Making a hardware reservation of a cluster for interactive use
- Co-allocation of resources of various types (hardware, network, licenses, ...)
- Defining a deadline for the completion of a job
We have had a discussion about this in Banff after which Oliver and I have prepared a proposal for a Time Constraints Profile for WS-Agreement. This proposal has been uploaded here:
https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15832?nav=1
We would be eager to hear your comments.
- Is the proposal clear?
- Is the proposal complete?
- Does the proposal satisfy your needs?
Best regards,
Dominic -- graap-wg mailing list graap-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/graap-wg
-- graap-wg mailing list graap-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/graap-wg
Dominic, all, the canonical use case is doing the daily weather report, or things like payroll. As such, there are real and serious applications for this. Whether *we* want this, I don't know :-) Best, Alexander -- Alexander Papaspyrou alexander.papaspyrou@tu-dortmund.de Am 07.12.2009 um 14:39 schrieb Dominic Battre <mailinglists@battre.de>:
Hello Costas,
it would certainly be a possible extension.
The question is do we want it? If we end up translating ical to XML we come to a specification that is extremely powerful but very difficult to implement.
Our idea was to use the simplest language that would be useful. Therefore, I would like to ask you and the others: Do you need something like "every day, 9am-5pm"?
Best regards,
Dominic
Constantinos (Costas) Kotsokalis wrote:
Hi Dominic,
Would you see fit to augment this also with some construct for defining periodic durations? E.g. to be able to say "every day, 9am-5pm", or things like that.
Best regards,
Costas
On 7 Dec 2009, at 13:43, Dominic Battre wrote:
Dear GRAAP members,
we have seen in various discussions that there seems to be a frequent desire for a standardized term language to express when a service shall be delivered.
Examples are:
- Making a hardware reservation of a cluster for interactive use
- Co-allocation of resources of various types (hardware, network, licenses, ...)
- Defining a deadline for the completion of a job
We have had a discussion about this in Banff after which Oliver and I have prepared a proposal for a Time Constraints Profile for WS-Agreement. This proposal has been uploaded here:
https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15832?nav=1
We would be eager to hear your comments.
- Is the proposal clear?
- Is the proposal complete?
- Does the proposal satisfy your needs?
Best regards,
Dominic -- graap-wg mailing list graap-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/graap-wg
-- graap-wg mailing list graap-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/graap-wg
Hi Dominic, Recurring patterns for service usage is something that is needed in many cases, even if not allowed by current technology/service providers. In an example scenario where someone rents VMs to execute enterprise operations s/w on them, (s)he would certainly prefer to load-balance over a number of them available during working hours, and half or less that number outside working hours, to save money. I know this is not something that current cloud providers offer (to the extent I'm aware of, at least) but I believe it's a realistic need, and fits with fully dynamic scaling scenarios. On the same time, I do agree that it increases complexity, especially if one is willing to include constructs such as "on the first Monday of every month" etc. Just my E0.02. Best regards, Costas On 7 Dec 2009, at 14:39, Dominic Battre wrote:
Hello Costas,
it would certainly be a possible extension.
The question is do we want it? If we end up translating ical to XML we come to a specification that is extremely powerful but very difficult to implement.
Our idea was to use the simplest language that would be useful. Therefore, I would like to ask you and the others: Do you need something like "every day, 9am-5pm"?
Best regards,
Dominic
Constantinos (Costas) Kotsokalis wrote:
Hi Dominic, Would you see fit to augment this also with some construct for defining periodic durations? E.g. to be able to say "every day, 9am-5pm", or things like that. Best regards, Costas On 7 Dec 2009, at 13:43, Dominic Battre wrote:
Dear GRAAP members,
we have seen in various discussions that there seems to be a frequent desire for a standardized term language to express when a service shall be delivered.
Examples are:
- Making a hardware reservation of a cluster for interactive use
- Co-allocation of resources of various types (hardware, network, licenses, ...)
- Defining a deadline for the completion of a job
We have had a discussion about this in Banff after which Oliver and I have prepared a proposal for a Time Constraints Profile for WS-Agreement. This proposal has been uploaded here:
https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15832?nav=1
We would be eager to hear your comments.
- Is the proposal clear?
- Is the proposal complete?
- Does the proposal satisfy your needs?
Best regards,
Dominic -- graap-wg mailing list graap-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/graap-wg
Hello Costas, I thought about this for time. My point of view is the following: I can use my calendar application and define appointments for "every day from now until next Friday, 9am-5pm". After entering this appointment and going to the calendar view, I see one appointment each day. So "every day from now until next Friday, 9am-5pm" was just an intensional description of what can be expressed by an extensional description as well (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensional_definition). So what are the advantages and disadvantages of an intensional description? 1) Positive: compact representation 2) Negative: difficult to model, negotiate and evaluate adherence 3) Positive: can be used to model infinite number of repetitions (every day until the end of the world) I think that 3) has no real usecase as contracts should contain a well defined end. Considering 1) and 2) I am still in favor of the extensional description. "every day from now until next Friday, 9am-5pm" becomes just "2009/12/10 9am-5pm, 2009/12/11 9am-5pm, ..., 2009/12/18 9am-5pm". When the user enters an SLA its GUI can still present "every day from now until next Friday, 9am-5pm" but just render it as an extensional set. Each individual time frame could be modeled as one SDT+GT. I think the extensional description has the same expressiveness (as mentioned, I don't see 3) as a usecase for us) but is easier to handle and creates a leaner specification. Best regards, Dominic On 12/07/2009 05:17 PM, Constantinos (Costas) Kotsokalis wrote:
Hi Dominic,
Recurring patterns for service usage is something that is needed in many cases, even if not allowed by current technology/service providers. In an example scenario where someone rents VMs to execute enterprise operations s/w on them, (s)he would certainly prefer to load-balance over a number of them available during working hours, and half or less that number outside working hours, to save money. I know this is not something that current cloud providers offer (to the extent I'm aware of, at least) but I believe it's a realistic need, and fits with fully dynamic scaling scenarios.
On the same time, I do agree that it increases complexity, especially if one is willing to include constructs such as "on the first Monday of every month" etc.
Just my E0.02.
Best regards,
Costas
On 7 Dec 2009, at 14:39, Dominic Battre wrote:
Hello Costas,
it would certainly be a possible extension.
The question is do we want it? If we end up translating ical to XML we come to a specification that is extremely powerful but very difficult to implement.
Our idea was to use the simplest language that would be useful. Therefore, I would like to ask you and the others: Do you need something like "every day, 9am-5pm"?
Best regards,
Dominic
Constantinos (Costas) Kotsokalis wrote:
Hi Dominic, Would you see fit to augment this also with some construct for defining periodic durations? E.g. to be able to say "every day, 9am-5pm", or things like that. Best regards, Costas On 7 Dec 2009, at 13:43, Dominic Battre wrote:
Dear GRAAP members,
we have seen in various discussions that there seems to be a frequent desire for a standardized term language to express when a service shall be delivered.
Examples are:
- Making a hardware reservation of a cluster for interactive use
- Co-allocation of resources of various types (hardware, network, licenses, ...)
- Defining a deadline for the completion of a job
We have had a discussion about this in Banff after which Oliver and I have prepared a proposal for a Time Constraints Profile for WS-Agreement. This proposal has been uploaded here:
https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15832?nav=1
We would be eager to hear your comments.
- Is the proposal clear?
- Is the proposal complete?
- Does the proposal satisfy your needs?
Best regards,
Dominic -- graap-wg mailing list graap-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/graap-wg
Dominic, Costas, all, Am 10.12.2009 um 19:13 schrieb Dominic Battre <mailinglists@battre.de>:
1) Positive: compact representation 2) Negative: difficult to model, negotiate and evaluate adherence
Actually, I don't really agree on this. Whether the agreement initiator or responder expands the intensional representation (and at which time) does not matter at all.
3) Positive: can be used to model infinite number of repetitions (every day until the end of the world)
I think that 3) has no real usecase as contracts should contain a well defined end.
Well, this might or might not be the case, since this is up to the contractors. I could think of examples where you want to have perpetual contracts but, from time to time, renegotiate a certain term (such as the price). A savings account would be an example for this, and one can think of many similar contract types.
I think the extensional description has the same expressiveness (as mentioned, I don't see 3) as a usecase for us) but is easier to handle and creates a leaner specification.
As said, I don't really agree on the former, but have to admit that the specification simplicity is a valid point, too. Personally, however, I would give more power to the expressiveness to ensure a broad set of possible agreements while sacrificing simplicity a bit, since humans are not supposed to ever see the electronic agreement in its bare, naked form anyway. Best Alexander
Best regards,
Dominic
On 12/07/2009 05:17 PM, Constantinos (Costas) Kotsokalis wrote:
Hi Dominic,
Recurring patterns for service usage is something that is needed in many cases, even if not allowed by current technology/service providers. In an example scenario where someone rents VMs to execute enterprise operations s/w on them, (s)he would certainly prefer to load-balance over a number of them available during working hours, and half or less that number outside working hours, to save money. I know this is not something that current cloud providers offer (to the extent I'm aware of, at least) but I believe it's a realistic need, and fits with fully dynamic scaling scenarios.
On the same time, I do agree that it increases complexity, especially if one is willing to include constructs such as "on the first Monday of every month" etc.
Just my E0.02.
Best regards,
Costas
On 7 Dec 2009, at 14:39, Dominic Battre wrote:
Hello Costas,
it would certainly be a possible extension.
The question is do we want it? If we end up translating ical to XML we come to a specification that is extremely powerful but very difficult to implement.
Our idea was to use the simplest language that would be useful. Therefore, I would like to ask you and the others: Do you need something like "every day, 9am-5pm"?
Best regards,
Dominic
Constantinos (Costas) Kotsokalis wrote:
Hi Dominic, Would you see fit to augment this also with some construct for defining periodic durations? E.g. to be able to say "every day, 9am-5pm", or things like that. Best regards, Costas On 7 Dec 2009, at 13:43, Dominic Battre wrote:
Dear GRAAP members,
we have seen in various discussions that there seems to be a frequent desire for a standardized term language to express when a service shall be delivered.
Examples are:
- Making a hardware reservation of a cluster for interactive use
- Co-allocation of resources of various types (hardware, network, licenses, ...)
- Defining a deadline for the completion of a job
We have had a discussion about this in Banff after which Oliver and I have prepared a proposal for a Time Constraints Profile for WS-Agreement. This proposal has been uploaded here:
https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15832?nav=1
We would be eager to hear your comments.
- Is the proposal clear?
- Is the proposal complete?
- Does the proposal satisfy your needs?
Best regards,
Dominic -- graap-wg mailing list graap-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/graap-wg
-- graap-wg mailing list graap-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/graap-wg
I think the real challenge with these repeating tasks or intervals is to capture any significant variation in confidence, commitment, compensation, etc. With independent agreements issued in a stream, both parties can decide how early or how late they want to "book" resources or commit to other details. With a single agreement that encodes repetition, you risk watering down the meaning of the agreement, e.g. the provider accepts but essentially ignores all the expanding instances beyond a near planning horizon, or the consumer didn't really know what they want and will end up canceling or otherwise revising the series description many times. Many of us already see this just with human calendars. Some people abuse "repeating" meeting schedules and block out lots of time with standing meetings which they end up canceling. Others avoid this by issuing individual requests for each meeting, but then they wait too long to try to book the "N+1th" meeting, and everyone is already booked with conflicting commitments! You really need some carefully prioritized dialog to expand out and "pencil in" different future goals and converge on a coordinated schedule that satisfies the group priorities. Otherwise, everything churns and you fall back to immediate, greedy scheduling with lots of waste. My gut feeling is that formalizing the repeating patterns is not going to make any difference in solving this problem. It could be useful to delegate complex planning to a single planner, but eventually the real coordinated negotiation will be in the form of many smaller "execution atoms", each of which can be negotiated or canceled as a seperate agreement or sub-agreement. karl -- Karl Czajkowski karlcz@bbswl.com
Hi Dominic and all, I am not completely sure about this, but doesn't the XML Schema Specification already define data types for recurring points in time (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#built-in-datatypes); see for example "time" or "gMonthDay". Couldn't we build on this? Best regards, Sebastian -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: graap-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:graap-wg-bounces@ogf.org] Im Auftrag von Dominic Battre Gesendet: Montag, 7. Dezember 2009 14:39 An: Constantinos (Costas) Kotsokalis Cc: GRAAP-WG Betreff: Re: [GRAAP-WG] Time Constraints Profile Hello Costas, it would certainly be a possible extension. The question is do we want it? If we end up translating ical to XML we come to a specification that is extremely powerful but very difficult to implement. Our idea was to use the simplest language that would be useful. Therefore, I would like to ask you and the others: Do you need something like "every day, 9am-5pm"? Best regards, Dominic Constantinos (Costas) Kotsokalis wrote:
Hi Dominic,
Would you see fit to augment this also with some construct for defining periodic durations? E.g. to be able to say "every day, 9am-5pm", or things like that.
Best regards,
Costas
On 7 Dec 2009, at 13:43, Dominic Battre wrote:
Dear GRAAP members,
we have seen in various discussions that there seems to be a frequent desire for a standardized term language to express when a service shall be delivered.
Examples are:
- Making a hardware reservation of a cluster for interactive use
- Co-allocation of resources of various types (hardware, network, licenses, ...)
- Defining a deadline for the completion of a job
We have had a discussion about this in Banff after which Oliver and I have prepared a proposal for a Time Constraints Profile for WS-Agreement. This proposal has been uploaded here:
https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15832?nav=1
We would be eager to hear your comments.
- Is the proposal clear?
- Is the proposal complete?
- Does the proposal satisfy your needs?
Best regards,
Dominic -- graap-wg mailing list graap-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/graap-wg
-- graap-wg mailing list graap-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/graap-wg
participants (6)
-
Alexander Papaspyrou -
Constantinos (Costas) Kotsokalis -
Dominic Battre -
Karl Czajkowski -
Sebastian Hudert -
Thomas Röblitz