I'm not sure what level of "addressing" is meant here, but my recollection/belief was that it was addressed in the group in so much as the topic was discussed at the last face-to-face and that the appearance of the GetAttributesDocument was the result of that discussion. We haven't as a group discussed the email that Peter sent out yet but it is my belief that doing so is essentially a rehash of discussions previously had. -Mark
-----Original Message----- From: ogsa-bes-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-bes-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Foster Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 1:42 PM To: Mail list for ogsa-bes-wg working group; ogsa-bes-wg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG] Tracker Resolution Descriptions
Has Peter's comment been discussed?
He advocates (I believe) that we should not include the GetAttributesDocument operation. Instead, any particular BES should choose (if they wish) to provide access to attributes via an appropriate resource model-specific operations.
* A WS-Transfer-based BES would use GET * A WSRF-based BES would use WS-ResourceProperties * A resource-model-free BES might define a GetAttributesDocument operation * etc.
This seems a good proposal to me.
Ian.
At 03:09 PM 9/2/2006 -0600, Peter G. Lane wrote:
2) Why are we still essentially advocating WS-Transfer's attribute model by having the GetAttributesDocument operation? In my opinion it is not necessary for minimal interop, and makes WS-Transfer's Get operation redundant. Is part of the problem that we haven't defined any interop standards yet?
_______________________________________________________________ Ian Foster -- Weblog: http://ianfoster.typepad.com <http://ianfoster.typepad.com/> Computation Institute: www.ci.uchicago.edu <http://www.ci.uchicago.edu/> & www.ci.anl.gov <http://www.ci.anl.gov/> Argonne: MCS/221, 9700 S. Cass Ave, Argonne, IL 60439 Chicago: Rm 405, 5640 S. Ellis Ave, Chicago, IL 60637 Tel: +1 630 252 4619 --- Globus Alliance: www.globus.org <http://www.globus.org/>