March 2005 - ogsa-wg - lists.ogf.org

OGSA version 1.0 and Glossary published
by Andreas Savva 02 Mar '05

02 Mar '05

Just a quick note to let you know that GGF has published the OGSA documents: GFD.30, "The Open Grid Services Architecture, Version 1.0" GFD.44, "Open Grid Services Architecture Glossary of Terms" and as Fred wrote in a separate email GFD.45, "Resource Management in OGSA" These are linked from the GGF home page http://www.ggf.org/ And many thanks to all who contributed to these documents! -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards'
by Dave Berry 01 Mar '05

01 Mar '05

Hi Savas, While someone may well have made the statement to which you refer, what I had in mind was the rather stronger statement I've heard, namely that developing WSRF services will be problematic in DevStudio unless MS themselves provide support for WSRF. The counter that I've heard from the WSRF side is that the existing WS-A support is all that is needed from MS; other support can be provided by third parties. I still think the best way to resolve this is for sceptics and advocates to "pair program" a service together and see what issues arise. Dave. -----Original Message----- From: Savas Parastatidis [mailto:Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk] Sent: 01 March 2005 19:55 To: Frank Siebenlist Cc: Mark Morgan; Dave Berry; gannon(a)cs.indiana.edu; foster(a)mcs.anl.gov; meder(a)mcs.anl.gov; ogsa-wg(a)gridforum.org; tony.hey(a)epsrc.ac.uk Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards' Dear Frank, Please note that the argument is not on whether library support for WSRF can or cannot be built on any platform. If you read the message from Dave Berry it refers to a statement which has been made in the past that WSRF-specific libraries are not necessary if support for WS-Addressing support exists. This is what my message was about. You seem to have missed that part of my argument. > > PS. (...be careful not to give arguments in support of wsrf and wsrf.net > ;-) ) > Thank you for the suggestion! Be assured that I am very careful in what I write. (I've learned my lesson from past mistakes :-) Regards, .savas.

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards'
by Savas Parastatidis 01 Mar '05

01 Mar '05

Dear Frank, Please note that the argument is not on whether library support for WSRF can or cannot be built on any platform. If you read the message from Dave Berry it refers to a statement which has been made in the past that WSRF-specific libraries are not necessary if support for WS-Addressing support exists. This is what my message was about. You seem to have missed that part of my argument. > > PS. (...be careful not to give arguments in support of wsrf and wsrf.net > ;-) ) > Thank you for the suggestion! Be assured that I am very careful in what I write. (I've learned my lesson from past mistakes :-) Regards, .savas.

2 1

RE: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards'
by Savas Parastatidis 01 Mar '05

01 Mar '05

The argument that is being made is not that an implementation of WS-RF cannot exist on .NET. WSRF.NET demonstrates that this is possible. The argument is about whether support for WS-Addressing is all that is required in order to interact with services built on top of WS-RF. I believe this to be an oversimplification. Support for WS-Addressing is absolutely required. However, it's not enough. The implementation of the semantics of the ResourceProperties and Lifetime related messages have to be provided. If they are not provided, a developer will end up implementing them. The analogy I usually use is this... The interaction with an HTTP server requires TCP/IP. If you have socket-programming libraries you can interact with the HTTP server. However, in the process you'll be implementing a programming library for HTTP communications. Regards, -- Savas Parastatidis http://savas.parastatidis.name > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of > Mark Morgan > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 5:10 PM > To: daveb(a)nesc.ac.uk; gannon(a)cs.indiana.edu; foster(a)mcs.anl.gov > Cc: meder(a)mcs.anl.gov; ogsa-wg(a)gridforum.org; tony.hey(a)epsrc.ac.uk > Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 'Challenging Times > for GGF & Standards' > > Isn't WSRF.NET at the University of Virginia essentially proof of this? > > -- > Mark Morgan > Research Scientist > Department of Computer Science > University of Virginia > http://www.cs.virginia.edu > mmm2a(a)virginia.edu > (434) 982-2790 >

3 2

RE: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards'
by Dave Berry 01 Mar '05

01 Mar '05

Mark, Perhaps you could be a person that sits down with some of the sceptics and tries to get to the bottom of their concerns? Dave. > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Morgan [mailto:mmm2a@virginia.edu] > Sent: 01 March 2005 17:10 > To: Dave Berry; gannon(a)cs.indiana.edu; foster(a)mcs.anl.gov > Cc: meder(a)mcs.anl.gov; ogsa-wg(a)gridforum.org; tony.hey(a)epsrc.ac.uk > Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: > 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards' > > Isn't WSRF.NET at the University of Virginia essentially > proof of this? > > -- > Mark Morgan > Research Scientist > Department of Computer Science > University of Virginia > http://www.cs.virginia.edu > mmm2a(a)virginia.edu > (434) 982-2790 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On > > Behalf Of Dave Berry > > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 12:07 PM > > To: Dennis Gannon; Ian Foster > > Cc: Samuel Meder; ogsa-wg; Tony Hey > > Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: > > 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards' > > > > Hi Dennis, > > > > MS were definitely in evidence at the meeting that Tony > > reported in his GridToday article. Whether the MS people > > there represented official company policy is less clear, but > > certainly those people have had some influence in the UK > > e-Science community. > > > > Other people are concerned that if MS do not explicitly > > support WSRF, this will make it harder to develop and/or > > deploy Grid services on MS systems. WSRF supporters say that > > this will have no effect, as the support that MS has for > > WS-Addressing is sufficient. It seems to me that this > > question could be settled by experiment. A WSRF supporter > > who is fluent in .Net could sit down with some of the > > sceptics while they attempt to create a WSRF service. > > > > Dave. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] > > On Behalf > > > Of Dennis Gannon > > > Sent: 01 March 2005 12:54 > > > To: Ian Foster > > > Cc: Samuel Meder; ogsa-wg; Tony Hey > > > Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: > > > 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards' > > > > > > hi Ian, > > > i agree that this consistency is critical. But how much WSRF or > > > ws-trans/ws-enum must be visible to the application > > builder? Perhaps > > > it is essential that one or the other must be exposed. i > > don't know. > > > perhaps doing so just adds another layer abstraction > layer as frank > > > suggests. but it may also be that we have defined the wrong > > > abstraction layers to start from. again, i don't know. > > > > > > my other point is this: i don't see this as a debate with > > MS. i see a > > > debate right in the core of GGF membership. from what i > > can see, MS > > > is a no-show at this party. > > > > > > dennis > > > > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Ian Foster wrote: > > > > > > > Dennis: > > > > > > > > I'm not sure that the "we don't need WSRF" is the heart of > > > the debate. If > > > > it was, then I think things are fairly clear: WSRF is just > > > some conventions > > > > for the messages that you send to do certain things (e.g., > > > > getResourceProperty to get state, Terminate to destroy > > something, or > > > > whatever the names are) in a WS context. If you don't > have those > > > > conventions, then everyone ends up defining their own, so > > > that e.g. a job > > > > management interface might have "getJobStatus" and > > > "destroyJob", a file > > > > transfer interface might have "getTransferStatus" and > > > "destroyTransfer". > > > > This lack of consistency just makes life difficult, without > > > providing any > > > > benefits. > > > > > > > > The debate with MS, as I understand it, seems to rather > > > relate to the fact > > > > that they are promoting a *different* set of conventions > > > for doing similar > > > > things, e.g., WS-Transfer instead of WS-ResourceProperties. > > > > > > > > Ian. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 10:23 PM 2/28/2005 -0500, Dennis Gannon wrote: > > > > >hi Sam, > > > > >i don't think MS has any orchestrated view on WSRF at all > > > (but i may > > > > >be wrong.) I think it is more the case that there are > > > people working on > > > > >grid standards (outside of microsoft) that feel that what > > > exists in the > > > > >ws-spec world is sufficient. hence if there is any onus, > > > it is on those > > > > >folks to show us that this is true. what tony is saying > > > is that users, > > > > >i.e. application builders, should not have to deal with > > > these details. The > > > > >should see clearly defined OGSA services and they should > > > have an easy > > > > >to understand set of interaction patterns to use these > > > services to build > > > > >thier applications. the OGSA point of view is that to be > > > precise in > > > > >the definition of these behavior patterns requires a > > > framework like wsrf. > > > > > > > > > >i actually feel that these things can all coexist. but > > > from the politics > > > > >of "what is simple", we seem to live in interesting times. > > > > > > > > > >dennis > > > > > > > > > >On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Samuel Meder wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 14:38 -0800, Frank Siebenlist wrote: > > > > > > > Could anyone summarize MS' WS-view, and how it > > > differs from WSRF? > > > > > > > > > > > > So far I have not seen any substantial difference > > > between the two > > > > > > approaches and I definitely believe the onus is on MS > > > to show why people > > > > > > should adopt their proprietary specifications vs. > > > adopting something > > > > > > that is being developed in a open standards body, is > > > getting very close > > > > > > to a 1.0 version and has multiple implementations behind it. > > > > > > > > > > > > /Sam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Frank. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Absorbing article by Tony Hey. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >http://news.tgc.com/nview.jsp?appid=360&print=1#342708 > > > > > > > >---- > > > > > > > >Hiro Kishimoto > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> GRIDtoday > > > > > > > >> NEWS AND INFORMATION FOR THE GLOBAL > > > GRID COMMUNITY > > > > > > > >> --- February 28, 2005: Vol. > > 4, No. 8 --- > > > > > > > >> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > >>SPECIAL FEATURES > > > > > > > > > > >>============================================================== > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>[ ] M342708 ) WSRF? WS-*? Where is GGF's OGSA Headed? > > > > > > > >> By Tony Hey, Contributing Editor > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Tony Hey, director of e-Science for the > > > Engineering and Physical > > > > > > > >>Science Research Council, continues to elaborate > > > the need for open > > > > > > > >>standards in the realm of Web services-based Grid > > > computing. He > > > > > > > >>discusses the great debate of WSRF vs. WS-*, and > > > lays out what the > > > > > > GGF > > > > > > > >>must do with OGSA in order to give e-Science > > > application developers > > > > > > > >>something to rally around. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Sam Meder <meder(a)mcs.anl.gov> > > > > > > The Globus Alliance - University of Chicago > > > > > > 630-252-1752 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > > > Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster > > > > Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science > > > > Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago > > > > Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. > > > > Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 > > > > Globus Alliance, www.globus.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards'
by Dave Berry 01 Mar '05

01 Mar '05

Hi Hiro, I think these proposals don't address the same functionality as WSRF. WS-Transfer may address part of WS-RP, but it doesn't support lifetime management. WS-Eventing is close to WS-BasicNotification. WS-Enumeration seems more relevant to aspects of DAIS or even InfoD. I don't know whether those WGs have looked at WS-Enumeration. I suspect that many scenarios that could use WS-Enumeration will also need lifetime management, which WS-Enumeration doesn't address. Dave. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > Sent: 01 March 2005 13:18 > To: 'Frank Siebenlist' > Cc: 'OGSA-WG' > Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: > 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards' > > Hi Frank, > > > Could anyone summarize MS' WS-view, and how it differs from WSRF? > > As already discussed, it is almost the same functionality but > different > way of rendering. > > The following is the overview of their specification stack > (or silo :-) > You can find Enumeration, Transfer, and Eventing. > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/default.aspx?pull=/libra > ry/en-us/dnwebsrv/ > html/introwsa.asp > > Hope it helps, > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] > On Behalf Of Frank > > Siebenlist > > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 7:38 AM > > To: Hiro Kishimoto > > Cc: 'OGSA-WG' > > Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: > 'Challenging Times for > GGF > > & Standards' > > > > Could anyone summarize MS' WS-view, and how it differs from WSRF? > > > > > > Thanks, Frank. > > > > > > > > Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > > > > >Hi all, > > > > > >Absorbing article by Tony Hey. > > > > > >http://news.tgc.com/nview.jsp?appid=360&print=1#342708 > > >---- > > >Hiro Kishimoto > > > > > > > > > > > >> GRIDtoday > > >> NEWS AND INFORMATION FOR THE GLOBAL GRID COMMUNITY > > >> --- February 28, 2005: Vol. 4, No. 8 --- > > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > >>SPECIAL FEATURES > > >>============================================================== > > >> > > >>[ ] M342708 ) WSRF? WS-*? Where is GGF's OGSA Headed? > > >> By Tony Hey, Contributing Editor > > >> > > >> Tony Hey, director of e-Science for the Engineering and Physical > > >>Science Research Council, continues to elaborate the need for open > > >>standards in the realm of Web services-based Grid computing. He > > >>discusses the great debate of WSRF vs. WS-*, and lays out > what the GGF > > >>must do with OGSA in order to give e-Science application > developers > > >>something to rally around. > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Frank Siebenlist franks(a)mcs.anl.gov > > The Globus Alliance - Argonne National Laboratory > > > > >

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards'
by Dave Berry 01 Mar '05

01 Mar '05

Hi Dennis, MS were definitely in evidence at the meeting that Tony reported in his GridToday article. Whether the MS people there represented official company policy is less clear, but certainly those people have had some influence in the UK e-Science community. Other people are concerned that if MS do not explicitly support WSRF, this will make it harder to develop and/or deploy Grid services on MS systems. WSRF supporters say that this will have no effect, as the support that MS has for WS-Addressing is sufficient. It seems to me that this question could be settled by experiment. A WSRF supporter who is fluent in .Net could sit down with some of the sceptics while they attempt to create a WSRF service. Dave. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On > Behalf Of Dennis Gannon > Sent: 01 March 2005 12:54 > To: Ian Foster > Cc: Samuel Meder; ogsa-wg; Tony Hey > Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: > 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards' > > hi Ian, > i agree that this consistency is critical. But how much WSRF or > ws-trans/ws-enum must be visible to the application builder? Perhaps > it is essential that one or the other must be exposed. i don't know. > perhaps doing so just adds another layer abstraction layer as frank > suggests. but it may also be that we have defined the wrong > abstraction > layers to start from. again, i don't know. > > my other point is this: i don't see this as a debate with MS. i see a > debate right in the core of GGF membership. from what i can > see, MS is a > no-show at this party. > > dennis > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Ian Foster wrote: > > > Dennis: > > > > I'm not sure that the "we don't need WSRF" is the heart of > the debate. If > > it was, then I think things are fairly clear: WSRF is just > some conventions > > for the messages that you send to do certain things (e.g., > > getResourceProperty to get state, Terminate to destroy something, or > > whatever the names are) in a WS context. If you don't have those > > conventions, then everyone ends up defining their own, so > that e.g. a job > > management interface might have "getJobStatus" and > "destroyJob", a file > > transfer interface might have "getTransferStatus" and > "destroyTransfer". > > This lack of consistency just makes life difficult, without > providing any > > benefits. > > > > The debate with MS, as I understand it, seems to rather > relate to the fact > > that they are promoting a *different* set of conventions > for doing similar > > things, e.g., WS-Transfer instead of WS-ResourceProperties. > > > > Ian. > > > > > > > > At 10:23 PM 2/28/2005 -0500, Dennis Gannon wrote: > > >hi Sam, > > >i don't think MS has any orchestrated view on WSRF at all > (but i may > > >be wrong.) I think it is more the case that there are > people working on > > >grid standards (outside of microsoft) that feel that what > exists in the > > >ws-spec world is sufficient. hence if there is any onus, > it is on those > > >folks to show us that this is true. what tony is saying > is that users, > > >i.e. application builders, should not have to deal with > these details. The > > >should see clearly defined OGSA services and they should > have an easy > > >to understand set of interaction patterns to use these > services to build > > >thier applications. the OGSA point of view is that to be > precise in > > >the definition of these behavior patterns requires a > framework like wsrf. > > > > > >i actually feel that these things can all coexist. but > from the politics > > >of "what is simple", we seem to live in interesting times. > > > > > >dennis > > > > > >On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Samuel Meder wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 14:38 -0800, Frank Siebenlist wrote: > > > > > Could anyone summarize MS' WS-view, and how it > differs from WSRF? > > > > > > > > So far I have not seen any substantial difference > between the two > > > > approaches and I definitely believe the onus is on MS > to show why people > > > > should adopt their proprietary specifications vs. > adopting something > > > > that is being developed in a open standards body, is > getting very close > > > > to a 1.0 version and has multiple implementations behind it. > > > > > > > > /Sam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Frank. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > >Absorbing article by Tony Hey. > > > > > > > > > > > >http://news.tgc.com/nview.jsp?appid=360&print=1#342708 > > > > > >---- > > > > > >Hiro Kishimoto > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> GRIDtoday > > > > > >> NEWS AND INFORMATION FOR THE GLOBAL > GRID COMMUNITY > > > > > >> --- February 28, 2005: Vol. 4, No. 8 --- > > > > > >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > >>SPECIAL FEATURES > > > > > > >>============================================================== > > > > > >> > > > > > >>[ ] M342708 ) WSRF? WS-*? Where is GGF's OGSA Headed? > > > > > >> By Tony Hey, Contributing Editor > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Tony Hey, director of e-Science for the > Engineering and Physical > > > > > >>Science Research Council, continues to elaborate > the need for open > > > > > >>standards in the realm of Web services-based Grid > computing. He > > > > > >>discusses the great debate of WSRF vs. WS-*, and > lays out what the > > > > GGF > > > > > >>must do with OGSA in order to give e-Science > application developers > > > > > >>something to rally around. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Sam Meder <meder(a)mcs.anl.gov> > > > > The Globus Alliance - University of Chicago > > > > 630-252-1752 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster > > Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science > > Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago > > Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. > > Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 > > Globus Alliance, www.globus.org > > > >

2 1

RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards'
by Hiro Kishimoto 01 Mar '05

01 Mar '05

Hi all, Absorbing article by Tony Hey. http://news.tgc.com/nview.jsp?appid=360&print=1#342708 ---- Hiro Kishimoto > GRIDtoday > NEWS AND INFORMATION FOR THE GLOBAL GRID COMMUNITY > --- February 28, 2005: Vol. 4, No. 8 --- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SPECIAL FEATURES > ============================================================== > > [ ] M342708 ) WSRF? WS-*? Where is GGF's OGSA Headed? > By Tony Hey, Contributing Editor > > Tony Hey, director of e-Science for the Engineering and Physical > Science Research Council, continues to elaborate the need for open > standards in the realm of Web services-based Grid computing. He > discusses the great debate of WSRF vs. WS-*, and lays out what the GGF > must do with OGSA in order to give e-Science application developers > something to rally around.

2 2

Revised GGF13 session plan
by Hiro Kishimoto 01 Mar '05

01 Mar '05

Hi all, The attached is the revised session plan for GGF13. You can also fine it on GridForge: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/GGF13_session_plan/en… Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 1

Execution Management Services (Re-factoring) draft
by Hiro Kishimoto 01 Mar '05

01 Mar '05

Hi all, Ravi's draft "EMS (re-factoring)" which we've reviewed today's call is now on the GridForge. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/ogsa-ems/en/2 Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0