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

DRMAA view on BES
by Rajic, Hrabri 09 Mar '05

09 Mar '05

While the DRMAA group members would like to stay on the sidelines regarding the WS infrastructure, JSDL, and WS-Agreement issues we feel that OGSA-BES members could save some time when discussing task/job/whatever management, control, and status portTypes to look into section 6.3.8 on page 26 of the DRMAA IDL binding document. If this is something that the initiators have in mind to discuss at OGSA-BES BoF we could contribute a very (ultra?) short presentation. Greetings -Hrabri

1 0

Regrets for this evenings telecon (3/9)
by Tom Maguire 09 Mar '05

09 Mar '05

Need to tidy up a few things around the house before travel to Korea, Tom Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. – Antoine de Saint-Exupery T o m M a g u i r e STSM, On Demand Architecture Poughkeepsie, NY 12601

1 0

Globus Alliance views on BES
by Karl Czajkowski 09 Mar '05

09 Mar '05

Hi, sorry for the delay but we've put together some documents summarizing our Globus Alliance view on what the important issues and constraints are for a successful Basic Execution Service standard. Please see the attached documents: 1. Approach -- a high-level survey of our concerns 2. Rendering -- more detailed thoughts about interface designs 3. Roadmap -- simple thoughts on a phased approach Later, I will send an additional note with links to Globus Toolkit 4.0 draft documents for our WS-GRAM job management component, and a brief overview of the service interface for those who want to think in WSDL and not read a bunch of documents. This probably will not be ready for another 12-18 hours. Please feel free to respond on the list or privately with comments about agreement, disagreement, or relative priorities! I will try to incorporate any feedback I hear into planning for my ultra short presentation at the BoF in Seoul. Thanks, karl -- Karl Czajkowski karlcz(a)univa.com

1 1

Proposed agenda for OGSA ByteIO BOF
by Dave Berry 09 Mar '05

09 Mar '05

All, Here is a draft agenda for Monday's ByteIO BOF. (I note Ian's concern about WG names and assume this will be thrashed out by the GFSG/ADs). Presentation of GGF IP Rules Pass around sign-up sheet Background & Use Cases (Dave) Discussion Proposed interface (Mark) Discussion Charter discussion Seven questions Existing WG or new WG? Milestones Stakeholders, co-chairs Scheduling of work, calls etc. Best wishes, Dave Berry Research Manager, National e-Science Centre 15 South College St., Edinburgh Tel: +44 131 6514039

1 0

Proposed agenda for March 9th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 09 Mar '05

09 Mar '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on March 9th Wednesday from 5pm to 7pm (CST). This is the last one before GGF13. Dial-in numbers for Wednesday: Free: +1-888-452-0308 Intl/Toll: +1-484-644-0505 PIN: 71815 Screen share service will be provided. URL: http://ogsa.glance.net Session key: 0309 See more explanation: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html 1) Early discussion (10 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Telecon minutes approval (if available) Agenda bashing 2) GGF13 session preparation (30 min) Confirmation of owner/note taker/guests for each session - OGSA session plan https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/GGF13_session_plan - GGF13 schedule http://tinyurl.com/4cz98 - Basic EM profile discussion (Hiro will send out proposal before the call) 3) roadmap discussion (if available) 4) Wrap up (10 min) AOB Mar. 13-16 GGF13 in Seoul ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 1

Base Profile Issue: Query RP
by David Snelling 09 Mar '05

09 Mar '05

Folks, I would like to open an issue on this. It appears that Query resource Properties was made mandatory in the Base Profile. I believe that give the state and number of query technologies possible and the existence of two other mechanisms to access RPs, this should be optional. Thanks to Andreas for checking the minutes for me to ascertain if this issue was actually discussed. It was not and therefore, I feel it is safe to open it. Begin forwarded message: > From: Andreas Savva <andreas.savva(a)jp.fujitsu.com> > Date: 9 March 2005 7:19:16 GMT > To: David Snelling <David.Snelling(a)uk.fujitsu.com> > Subject: Re: Favour > > I also looked at my initial notes and I couldn't find a mention of > this. I think this is a problem with my notes (the minute taker was > broken at the time). Sorry. > > Is there anything else you want me to do? > > Andreas Savva wrote: >> I had a look at the f2f minutes but there is no mention of this.... >> Sorry. >> My notes from the first day were very bad as I had a very hard time >> staying focused. Terrible jet lag in the afternoon. >> I'll have a look through the raw notes which I have back home and let >> you know if I find anything. >> David Snelling wrote: >>> Andreas, >>> >>> Can you find (in the minutes) any info on the discussion at the F2f >>> as to why the QueryRP was made manditory? >>> > > -- > Andreas Savva > Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd > > -- Take care: Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com > Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Hayes Park Central Hayes End Road Hayes, Middlesex UB4 8FE +44-208-606-4649 (Office) +44-208-606-4539 (Fax) +44-7768-807526 (Mobile)

1 0

Proposed (DRAFT) Agenda for Basic EM BOF
by Andrew Grimshaw 09 Mar '05

09 Mar '05

The objective of the BOF is to form the OGSA Basic Execution Management Service Working Group (OGSA-BEM). The output of the OGSA-BEM will fit into the overall OGSA EMS architecture, as initially described in the OGSA V1 Document. It is expected that the OGSA EMS architecture will evolve over time - and that evolution will eventually need to be incorporated. Such incorporation may not take place in this working group - depending on whether OGSA-BEM completes before changes are made in the overall OGSA-EMS. Proposed Agenda Presentation of GGF IP Rules Pass around sign-up sheet Background on OGSA EMS Basic Execution Management - A Focus on Minimal Services Draft Service Containers description Charter discussion Should charter be extended to include "Actors"? Should the charter be extended to include any form of agreements? Milestones Scheduling of calls

4 7

RE: [ogsa-wg] A thought
by Von Reich, Jeffrin 08 Mar '05

08 Mar '05

Well, There is nothing like sense of humor for doing a self analysis :). for that maybe more coffee also might be required ( and more note taking too :) ) . take care, Jeffrin -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Foster Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 5:12 PM To: Andrew Grimshaw; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] A thought and consumed countless gallons of coffee!! At 06:55 PM 3/7/2005 -0500, Andrew Grimshaw wrote: Since Brussels the OGSA working group (including design teams) have had three face-to-face meetings - in Washington DC, Chicago, and London. They have - spent over eighty hours on group teleconferences - flown over 200,000 miles to face-to-face meetings - spent over 100 person nights in hotel rooms - eaten countless muffins and sweet rolls - gained more kilos than we can count _______________________________________________________________ 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 <http://www.globus.org/>

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-BES-07Mar2005
by Dave Berry 08 Mar '05

08 Mar '05

I have a couple of thoughts about the proposed interface (quite apart from the "WSRF?" Discussion). I post them here because they might be relevant to the general question of the "multiple arguments" pattern. 1. The getActivityStatus operation takes an array argument and returns an array of array of strings. This looks like a design written by a C programmer(*). In the context of a Web Service interface, wouldn't it be more appropriate to return an XML document? It should be possible to define a simple XML schema that nests activity statuses under activity IDs, posibly restricting the range of permitted activity statuses (rather than using arbitrary strings). This would be more robust and self-documenting than relying on positional arguments in arrays. (*) I'm not implying that programming in C is bad per se, just that it's inappropriate for this level of interface. 2. The getActivityStatus and terminateActivity operations take an array of activity IDs. This means that the client has to include logic for deciding which IDs to pass in. An alternative might be to use a query language, so that the client could specify sets of activities that meet certain criteria. E.g. a simple query might specify "all activities owned by this client" (assuming a definition of ownership...). More complex queries might specify: - "all activities that have been running for more than x minutes" - "all activities that have failed to start" - "all activities taking more than X megabytes" - "the activities with IDs in this list" (i.e. providing the same behaviour as an array parameter). This may at first seem an ambitious suggestion, but of course we can use an existing query language rather than develop a new one. If the activities can be represented as a virtual XML document, then the query language can be XPath or XQuery. 3. We need to clarify when operations use abstract names and when they use addresses. This is a general question across the architecture, but it is particularly apparent here because we see clear differences between the proposals. Also, what happens when a job is migrated from one service to another? I realise that this is outside the scope of OGSA-BES, but the answer to that question may constrain the design here (or vice versa). Dave. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On > Behalf Of Steven Newhouse > Sent: 07 March 2005 21:45 > To: ogsa-wg > Subject: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-BES-07Mar2005 > > Document for tonight's discussion. > > Steven > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr Steven Newhouse Tel:+44 (0)2380 598789 > Deputy Director, Open Middleware Infrastructure Institute (OMII) > Suite 6005, Faraday Building (B21), Highfield Campus, > Southampton University, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK >

2 1

RE: [ogsa-wg] Proposed (DRAFT) Agenda for Basic EM BOF
by Dave Berry 08 Mar '05

08 Mar '05

I thought this was what Andrew meant. Anyway, it is important that people taking part in the new WG realise that they are constrained by decisions made in the overall group. They can of course raise issues to be decided in the overall group, with the BEM service(s) as examples of why the issues are important. But we don't want to end up in a situation where (say) DAIS implements the "multiple arguments" pattern one way and OGSA-BEM implements it a different way. Dave. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On > Behalf Of David Snelling > > I would agree with Ian here based on our agreement at the Washington > F2F. There we agreed the our ptofiles would be consistent with the > architecture. I believe this should also apply to these spawned WGs. > Technically however, the forming WG could charter its self to be > constrained to the current EMS model. I would prefer that charter > support the same "invariant" model we use for profiles. This would > allow the EMS model to be modified in light of lessons learned in the > new WG.

1 0