Michel, Philipp and all, +------------------+ | JSDL Documents | +------------------+ Inside the OGF JSDL WG, we are trying to improve the specifications of the JSDL document. But during the lifetime of a job, there are at least 3 incarnations (or views) of its JSDL document : User JSDL Document ------------------ - This is the document provided by the user submitting the job. - The syntax of this document should permit abstraction and should provide flexibility. - In particular, it is advisable that this document permits : -- Static 'OR' operators for requirements as described at http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6522 -- Conditional requirements as described at http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6521 Contextualized JSDL Document ---------------------------- - Out of the User JSDL Document, a matchmaker service produces this Contextualized JSDL Document and submits it to an LRMS (Batch System), which has to understand and execute it. - Therefore, the matchmaker service must solve the flexibility of the User JSDL Document against available resources, and the produded Contextualized JSDL Document must be deterministic. - In particular, the Contextualized JSDL Document : -- may still contain static 'OR' operators for requirements as described at http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6522 -- should NOT contain conditional requirements as described at http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6521 Activity Document ----------------- - This Activity Document contains only timestamped history, logs, traces, ... about the job, for purposes of monitoring, forensics, security audits, stats, data mining, ... - Therefore, this Activity Document should contain the User JSDL Document and the Contextualized JSDL Document, but only as embedded text. - It is advisable that this Activity Document indicates, for each user requirement, if the matchmaker service or the LRMS (Batch system) was able to really fulfill this user requirement. +-------------------------------------+ | Target of the JSDL specifications | +-------------------------------------+ My personal opinion is : - The specifications of the Contextualized JSDL Document are already provided by each LRMS (Batch system), such as Condor, LSF, PBS, SGE, ... - The target of the JSDL specifications which we have to improve is the User JSDL Document. - We should also take into account the existence of the 2 other documents, and describe the impact of the JSDL specifications on them when relevant. +--------------+ | Conclusion | +--------------+ - Please study carefully the definitions which I gave above for the 3 documents. Do not hesitate to criticize and provide suggestions for improvements. - Please provide also your opinion on which document is the target of the JSDL specifications. Thank you in advance for your work. Best regards. ----------------------------------------------------- Etienne URBAH LAL, Univ Paris-Sud, IN2P3/CNRS Bat 200 91898 ORSAY France Tel: +33 1 64 46 84 87 Skype: etienne.urbah Mob: +33 6 22 30 53 27 mailto:urbah@lal.in2p3.fr ----------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 17/11/2011 15:36, Michel Drescher wrote:
* The group discussed three "incarnations" of a JSDL document (or views):
** The document a user submits, that allows abstraction and flexibility
** The contextualised document, which a matchmaker service produced out of solving the flexibility in the submitted version against available resources
** The document that describes the current activity as an activity document (see activity schema)
* Take this discussion out on the mailing list and ask for comments before deciding on scope.
Project: JSDL-WG