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

Profile Definition v14 uploaded
by Treadwell, Jem 24 Jun '05

24 Jun '05

Hi, I've uploaded v14 of the Profile Definition with some final edits. Dave S. will take a look at it over the weekend, and review all the changes. You can find the document at http://tinyurl.com/9fqx2. - Jem ________________________________ Jem Treadwell Hewlett-Packard Company 6000 Irwin Road Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Phone: 856-638-6021 Fax: 856-638-6190 E-mail: Jem.Treadwell(a)hp.com <mailto:Jem.Treadwell@hp.com>

1 0

OGSA-RSS BoF at GGF14
by Mathias Dalheimer 24 Jun '05

24 Jun '05

Dear all, please put the following date into your calendar: OGSA Resource Selection Services WG BoF Wednesday, June 29, 2005 2:00pm to 3:30pm Westin Michigan Avenue Hotel, Chicago, Regent 2 meeting room To get an idea of the services this group will focus on, documents planned, milestones and the group's relation to other GGF groups, please visit the preliminary web site at: http://h63759.serverkompetenz.net:8668//space/start The charter draft is here: http://h63759.serverkompetenz.net:8668//space/Charter+Discussion/draft-ggf-… Hope to see you in Chicago, Mathias

1 0

Teleconference minutes - 22 June 2005
by Andreas Savva 24 Jun '05

24 Jun '05

Minutes attached. Outline: GGF14 session preparation Profile definition review WSRF BP appendix E (security) review (minor) http://tinyurl.com/5fxfd/minutes-20050622/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA Teleconference - 22 June 2005 ================================== * Participants Dave Berry (NeSC) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Mark Morgan (UVa) Takuya Mori (NEC, ANL) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Jem Treadwel (HP) Apologies: Tom Maguire Minutes: Andreas Savva * Minutes approval Minutes of June 13, 15 and 20 approved with no changes. * GGF14 preparation Reviewed sessions and assignments ** Session 1 - Hiro and Tom to give overview of OGSA activities. - Jem and Tom to give overview of the three documents (Profile definition, WSRF Basic Profile, Roadmap). A more detailed look at the documents in session 3. ** Session 2 - Andrew to lead. - It conflicts with MWS-BoF. - Fred volunteered to lead this EGA session if Andrew decides to attend the MWS-BoF instead. ** Session 3 - More detailed look at Profile definition, WSRF BP and Roadmap documents. - Hiro is looking for a place to have the "Next Step" discussion. Since Tom will attend only on Tuesday Hiro is thinking of using part of this session. Action: Hiro to talk to Tom and arrange a slot for the "Next Step" discussion; possibly in this session. ** Session 4 - Andrew to lead. - DMTF Utility WG wants a half-hour for a presentation(?) - Note this is not the RSS-BoF. The BoF is on the next day. - Conflicts with a Resource management session. ** Session 5 - Since the OGSA Naming-WG has been approved this is not an OGSA-WG session anymore. ** Session 6 - Fred is looking for a minute taker. - This is a working session; focus is technical discussion. ** Session 7 - Fred is looking for a minute taker. - Resource Model discussion (another working session) - Unfortunately this conflicts with security, data transfer, etc. ** Session 8 - In-depth technical discussion about WSDM ** Session 9 - How to use WSDM in OGSA specifications - Plan is for - WSDM presentation - CDDLM presentation - OGSA BP presentation - Need someone to give this presentation or Fred may do it himself if there is a ready presentation. - Fred to look into using the slides from Session 3. (Probably Tom's.) (There is a separate WSDM demo session. But it conflicts with many OGSA sessions. Fred will ask for the WSDM demo to start early so that if people leave the town hall meeting early (say 15 minutes earlier) they can still have a look.) ** Session 10 Recently an OGSA-AuthZ document was submited. One topic here should be to clarify the role of this document since it uses the 'OGSA' name. There are also a number of data related security issues. But due to conflicts Dave B is planning to arrange a separate teleconf after GGF14 to discuss them. ** Session 11 Abdeslem is the owner of this session. Hiro will follow up with him. ** Session 12 - This is the design team review meeting. Unfortunately many people cannot attend: Tom, Fred, Takuya, and Frank. - Team leaders who cannot attend should write up slides and ask someone else to present them. ** Other There has been no request for a phone bridge for any session. Hiro is not planning not set up one this time. There is a WSDM F2F in the IBM building, approximately 1 mile away from the hotel. It will be on Thursday and Friday and WSDM TC members can attend. * Profile definition review Discussed the document state and how likely it is to be able to submit this week. It looks difficult but doable. But it may have to be a very short final call. In any case submitting at the end of this week is partly symbolic---the group can say the document was submitted at the outreach session at GGF14. - Reviewed Jem's version (later revised and uploaded to gridforge by Andreas as v1.013) - Reviewed revised table - Jem added legend and fixed the formatting of the table. - Discussed using 'document' to mean 'profile or specification' in certain cases. Agreed it's ok, if it is in a context that does not cause confusion. The usage should be explained in advance, perhaps by putting a sentence in the "Terminology" section. - Section 3.3: - Added text (bullets) as proposed by Hiro. But the two sets say similar things. Reduced to one. - Also made the distinction between the bullets clearer (mandatory/optional distinction). - Started making a distinction between 'profile' and 'Profile' - Andreas will re-check usage during his review (done) - Added statement that informational profile references must also be consistent. - Added acknowledgments. - Discussed whether to have separate Contributors but decided that it is not important for this document. - Discussed who to add. Looked up recent review meetings and put a list together. - The list needs to be reviewed. - Introduction - An introduction section is needed. - Andreas to do a first pass. (done) - Adoption of profile - It was discussed and agreed on an earlier call that it is not correct to talk about a profile being implemented/adopted. But some text is needed to explain why. - Drafted text (profiles define compliance targets not implemention targets) and Andreas will review and possibly revise. (done) - Review Dave S's comment on adding more explanation on why adoption level does not apply to the entire referenced specification but only to those parts that are used in a conformance target. - Added text and Andreas will review and possibly revise for next version (done). - Jem will send his working draft to Andreas. Andreas will revise and upload the next draft within the day. (done) * Basic Profile review Tom could not make the call. Reviewed some BP security issues with Takuya. - Andreas cannot confirm the security related artifacts on the BP tracker. He asked Takuya to check these and post a comment in each artifact whether it can be closed or not. Andreas will then close them. - Appendix E review (security) - A number of minor comments from Hiro. - l.782 WS-Addressing reference should be to 1.0 - l.785 Delete the line - l.810-830: The XML fragment needs reformating - l.830-845: Dangling references - Takuya to check comments on appendix E and make updates. (Talk with Tom about getting the pen on the document or just update the appendix and send it to Tom.)

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28, noon-1:30
by Fred Maciel 24 Jun '05

24 Jun '05

Marty, > FACT: Not everyone is enamored with WSRF, meaning that WSRF > is unlikely to > be "just there" in the tooling and infrastructure anytime soon. Re-read my e-mail again and tell me, where did I write "WSRF" there? You are putting words in my mouth. I don't care much what is used as a profile (if the IP of the protocols there is clear, and for instance I can write free software without nasty legal attacks -- I have an ugly scar on that one). What I care is that it's *one* profile, and things are interoperable. > OGSA-WG can choose to stick its collective head in the sand > and hope that > this issue goes away, By leaving the market choose, that's exactly what we are doing. :-) > Again, to stress, I personally just want convergence. That's exactly what I want too. Regards, Fred Maciel.

2 1

RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28, noon-1:30
by Fred Maciel 23 Jun '05

23 Jun '05

Hi Steven, > > Try to steer the discusion past that one (or around it), so > that we can get > > to the next problem: > > The purpose of the BOF is to explore if there is interest in > developing > a second OGSA profile. I don't see this as a discussion point > within the > BoF unless their is overlap.. and isn't this what the GFSG examines? - When I sent that e-mail the agenda was not that clear, and in fact it still isn't -- it's time for a formal agenda listing what is going to be discussed, and especially what is *not* going to be discussed. Notice that I posted that e-mail as an attempt to make things clearer, and I'm saying that this subject is improductive and worth avoiding. - The word "second" above is important, because that's when it stops being "only one". So if the session leaders don't take care the "(1) Are multiple base profiles OK to begin with?" subject will come up, directly or indirectly, and a lot of time will be wasted in religious discussions among people who disagree with the GFSG policy. > > (3) What are the plans for the "WS-I-only" profile? > > What is being proposed is not a WS-I only OGSA profile. WS-I (basic & > security profiles) define a set of specifications and how Just to clarify, the use of quotation marks above was intentional due to the lack of a name, and I agree with what you said. > > I agree multiple basic profiles are bad idea wrt interoperability > > and architecture perspective. > > But may be critical to wider grid adoption which is why I believe GGF > accepts multiple approaches. IMHO it is a pity that this policy still > seems to be resisted... may be we should drop the O in OGSA? > > Recall, that the 'OGSI profile' did not gain wide adoption. Exploring > different approaches can only help to improve understanding. What is > important IMHO is to bring all approaches into a standards process so > that whatever mechanisms that are used are defined. Once > defined natural selection can drive their evolution. I won't be able to go to the MWS-BOF (I'll be in the OGSA-EGA session), so I'll leave my opinion registered here, very briefly. The risk is that if we leave it for the market to decide, the market won't choose against one or another profile, but it will choose against OGSA as a whole. The people willing to pay for OGSA functionality won't be able to get different components from different parties to work together because they won't fit the same profile, won't speak the same protocols, etc.. The fact that the architecture is theoretically unified will mean nothing because, from their point of view, in practice things simply do not work, period. OGSA as a brand will be meaningless. Who wins then? I have a few guesses, but I am not stupid enough to list them in public forum. Being sarcastic, on the letter "O", perhaps the GGF was truly Open around GGF6, when OGSA was just an architecture among many, nothing special. But the GFSG chose it as the "flagship architecture" of the GGF, stating at least a preference. Allowing multiple profiles without preferences moves things back in the direction of GGF6, which for some people is wonderful, and for others, disastrous. (Again, I'm being sarcastic, don't waste your time taking this too seriously). Regards, Fred Maciel Consensus is the absence of leadership -- Margaret Thatcher

3 2

Re: [ogsa-wg] Profile definition v13
by Tom Maguire 23 Jun '05

23 Jun '05

Yeah, I get it now. Checking on the history and starting internal discussions. Tom Frey’s Law: “Every 5 years the number of architecture components double and the ability to comprehend them halves” 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 Davanum Srinivas <davanum(a)gmail.com> wrote on 06/23/2005 12:26:08 PM: > Tom, > > Have you read the IBM license for WS-Security > (http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/977Q/2112.shtml) Apache will not > sign this license as-is. I can email you the details of our objections > to this license if you want me to. The concerns are VERY similar to > the concerns Apache had for sender-id > (http://www.apache.org/foundation/docs/sender-id-position.html) If > you read the IBM license (or Microsoft's) you will see that it is next > to impossible for an open source project to comply to the license > requirements. > > Thanks, > dims > > On 6/23/05, Tom Maguire <tmaguire(a)us.ibm.com> wrote: > > It is unclear to me after reading through the threads what is the license > > issue. > > > > Tom > > > > > > Frey's Law: "Every 5 years the number of architecture components double and > > the ability to comprehend them halves" > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > Steve Loughran > > <steve_loughran@h > > pl.hp.com> To > > Sent by: ogsa-wg <ogsa-wg(a)gridforum.org> > > owner-ogsa-wg@ggf cc > > .org davanum(a)gmail.com > > Subject > > Re: [ogsa-wg] Profile definition > > 06/23/2005 08:23 v13 > > AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andreas Savva wrote: > > > I've uploaded v13 of the Profile definition. This includes a lot of > > > edits from Jem and from the review done in the last (yesterday) call. > > > > > > > > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf- > ogsa-profile-definition/en/13 > > > > > > > > > > > > One little troublespot with the profile is that unless IBM and Microsoft > > are willing to adapt their IPR licensing policy for WSSecurity, there > > may shortly not be any functional open source WS-Security implementations > > > > the summary of the current state is: > > > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator-general&m=111894292828449&w=2 > > > > and the licenses in question are > > > > http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/standards/ > > http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/977Q/2112.shtml > > > > Unless these two vendors come to an amenable position, there isn't going > > to be an apache implementation (and that includes an end to WSS4J), > > which is going to prevent it from entering the 'community' section, or > > being broadly used. > > > > Now, who was planning on using WSS4J in their products? > > > > -steve > > > > > > > -- > Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/

1 0

Profile definition v13
by Andreas Savva 23 Jun '05

23 Jun '05

I've uploaded v13 of the Profile definition. This includes a lot of edits from Jem and from the review done in the last (yesterday) call. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-profil… Tom, Dave: Since you are the authors, one (or both) of you should review and accept or reject changes. Especially the ones that may affect the intended meaning. -- Andreas Savva

4 3

RE: [ogsa-wg] Minor comments on documents
by Treadwell, Jem 23 Jun '05

23 Jun '05

Hmm, it seems to me that they're more likely to be written by other groups than by OGSA-WG, and OGSA-WG should also be considered a domain-expert group, so I don't see any reason to call us out explicitly. For now I've removed "and their design teams" phrase - does anyone have any objection to just leaving it like that? Note also that in the intro para we do say that OGSA-WG "manages" the overall process. - Jem > -----Original Message----- > From: Hiro Kishimoto [mailto:hiro.kishimoto@jp.fujitsu.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:23 AM > To: Andreas Savva > Cc: Treadwell, Jem; Djaoui, A (Abdeslem); ogsa-wg > Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Minor comments on documents > > Hi Andreas, Jem, Abdeslem, > > I agree with Andreas. How about the following? > > "which are written and maintained by the OGSA-WG or the > appropriate domain-expert working groups" > > Thanks, > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > Andreas Savva wrote: > > Jem, Abdeslem > > > > I think it's inappropriate to mention design teams in this context, > > since they do not have a formal role. The document itself would be > > labelled as the output of the working group, not of the design team. > > > > Treadwell, Jem wrote: > > > >> Hi Abdeslem, my first thought was that that's too low > level, but we > >> do mention design teams elsewhere in the doc, so I've added it to > >> both of these bullets. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> - Jem > >> > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org > [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf > >>> Of Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) > >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 11:20 AM > >>> To: Treadwell, Jem; Hiro Kishimoto; Steven Newhouse; Tom Maguire > >>> Cc: ogsa-wg > >>> Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] Minor comments on documents > >>> > >>> Jem > >>> > >>> After your sentence > >>> > >>> > >>>> Service Description documents, which are written and > >>> > >>> maintained by the > >>> > >>>> appropriate domain-expert working groups, > >>>> > >>> > >>> Should you add "or design teams" at the end. I am raising this > >>> because for informations services there is no plan to form a WG. > >>> > >>> Abdeslem > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org > [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org]On Behalf > >>> Of Treadwell, Jem > >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 3:21 PM > >>> To: Hiro Kishimoto; Steven Newhouse; Tom Maguire > >>> Cc: ogsa-wg > >>> Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] Minor comments on documents > >>> > >>> > >>> Hiro/Steve/Tom, > >>> > >>> My comments also embedded... > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] > >>> > >>> On Behalf > >>> > >>>> Of Hiro Kishimoto > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 9:29 AM > >>>> To: Steven Newhouse > >>>> Cc: ogsa-wg > >>>> Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Minor comments on documents > >>>> > >>>> Thanks Steven, > >>>> > >>>> My comments inline <HK>. > >>>> ---- > >>>> Hiro Kishimoto > >>>> > >>>> Steven Newhouse wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> OGSA WSRF Basic Profile 1.0 (v018 June 13th 2005) > >>>>> > >>>>> Page 1: Status of this memo > >>>>> Is there not a WSRF missing from this opening line? > >>>>> e.g. '... write normative OGSA services based around the > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> WSRF set of > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> specifications.' > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> <HK> > >>>> Good catch! Your text works for me. > >>>> </HK> > >>>> > >>> > >>> JT: I'll leave this one for Tom, as he has the pen again > right now. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>> OGSA Roadmap (v010 June 6th 2005) > >>>>> > >>>>> Section 2, Point 1, Bullet 3: Should these service description > >>>>> documents not be 'owned' by the working group developing > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> the service? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> The text implies to me that the OGSA-WG writes them... > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> which I don't > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> think is the case. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> <HK> > >>>> Good point. Let's add something like "domain-expert WG > writes this > >>>> service description (scenario document) if appropriate." > >>>> </HK> > >>>> > >>> > >>> JT: Here's my update, in line (I think!) with Hiro's suggestion: > >>> > >>> * Service Description documents, which are written and > maintained by > >>> the appropriate domain-expert working groups, describe > the services > >>> in the area in natural language, listing the interfaces and > >>> operations defined by each service. > >>> > >>> * Scenario documents, also written by domain-expert > working groups, > >>> demonstrate how these services can implement the use > cases, using a > >>> combination of natural language and UML. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>> Section 2.2: > >>>>> Should there not be some statement that OGSA profiles should be > >>>>> developed/revised outside the OGSA-WG in theor own WG? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> <HK> > >>>> I think they can if their Profile abide by OGSA branding > guideline. > >>>> </HK> > >>>> > >>> > >>> JT: I inserted this text at what is now line 199, > *before* the para > >>> beginning "Members of the OGSA-WG": > >>> OGSA Recommended and Informational Profiles may be > developed either > >>> by the OGSA-WG or by domain-expert working groups, but it is > >>> important to note that they must adhere to GGF's forthcoming OGSA > >>> branding guidelines, which are discussed in section 2.3. > >>> > >>> Let me know if you see any issues with this, as I'll be > posting this > >>> for final call very soon. > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> - Jem > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] Minor comments on documents
by Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) 23 Jun '05

23 Jun '05

Jem After your sentence > Service Description documents, which are written and maintained by the > appropriate domain-expert working groups, Should you add "or design teams" at the end. I am raising this because for informations services there is no plan to form a WG. Abdeslem -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org]On Behalf Of Treadwell, Jem Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 3:21 PM To: Hiro Kishimoto; Steven Newhouse; Tom Maguire Cc: ogsa-wg Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] Minor comments on documents Hiro/Steve/Tom, My comments also embedded... > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 9:29 AM > To: Steven Newhouse > Cc: ogsa-wg > Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Minor comments on documents > > Thanks Steven, > > My comments inline <HK>. > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > Steven Newhouse wrote: > > OGSA WSRF Basic Profile 1.0 (v018 June 13th 2005) > > > > Page 1: Status of this memo > > Is there not a WSRF missing from this opening line? > > e.g. '... write normative OGSA services based around the > WSRF set of > > specifications.' > > <HK> > Good catch! Your text works for me. > </HK> JT: I'll leave this one for Tom, as he has the pen again right now. > > > OGSA Roadmap (v010 June 6th 2005) > > > > Section 2, Point 1, Bullet 3: Should these service description > > documents not be 'owned' by the working group developing > the service? > > The text implies to me that the OGSA-WG writes them... > which I don't > > think is the case. > > <HK> > Good point. Let's add something like "domain-expert WG writes > this service description (scenario document) if appropriate." > </HK> JT: Here's my update, in line (I think!) with Hiro's suggestion: * Service Description documents, which are written and maintained by the appropriate domain-expert working groups, describe the services in the area in natural language, listing the interfaces and operations defined by each service. * Scenario documents, also written by domain-expert working groups, demonstrate how these services can implement the use cases, using a combination of natural language and UML. > > Section 2.2: > > Should there not be some statement that OGSA profiles should be > > developed/revised outside the OGSA-WG in theor own WG? > > <HK> > I think they can if their Profile abide by OGSA branding guideline. > </HK> JT: I inserted this text at what is now line 199, *before* the para beginning "Members of the OGSA-WG": OGSA Recommended and Informational Profiles may be developed either by the OGSA-WG or by domain-expert working groups, but it is important to note that they must adhere to GGF's forthcoming OGSA branding guidelines, which are discussed in section 2.3. Let me know if you see any issues with this, as I'll be posting this for final call very soon. Thanks! - Jem

2 1

RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28, noon-1:30
by Dave Berry 23 Jun '05

23 Jun '05

Marty, I don't know how much debate you want on the list before the BOF itself, but could you perhaps answer two questions to help set the context? 1. Please could you clarify the status of WS-Transfer, WS-Eventing and WS-Enumeration in the terms of the OGSA Profile template? I.e. have they been submitted to an SDO, are they draft or evolving, etc.? 2. I can see that WS-Transfer specifies some of the functionality of WSRF and WS-Eventing is largely equivalent to WS-BaseNotification, but what has WS-Enumeration to do with this? From a brief reading, it seems to specify functionality that is independent of either stack. Dave. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Marty Humphrey Sent: 21 June 2005 15:28 To: 'Ogsa-Wg' Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28, noon-1:30 Hi Ian et. al., A very good question! ("can you define the goals of the BOF more precisely other than "not WSRF"?) I sent this email in part to hear from the community how "broad" they might like it to be. That is, we're being flexible. If someone wants to talk about one of these specific topics, we will certainly try our best to accommodate. Note that by default I believe the discussions will center around WS-Transfer, WS-Enumeration, WS-Eventing, et. al. I will talk about my team's use of WS-Transfer, WS-Enumeration, and WS-Eventing. I think we're in a very good position to discuss the pros and cons of these specs as compared with WSRF (as our project has implemented/used both). Let me answer the question in a different way. GGF Chair Mark Linesch said recently: "Our approach with the OGSA architecture along with our collaborative work on OGSA profiles is to: (1) describe 'the most traveled paths through the forest' rather than to dictate that there is only one path; and (2) to continue to highlight that multiple, overlapping paths may not be in the interests of the industry over time" (http://news.taborcommunications.com/msgget.jsp?mid=403500&xsl=story.xsl) Simply, we believe that there has been sufficient "hallway discussions" on BOTH (1) and (2) that it makes good sense to gather people to discuss BOTH of these topics in a realistic and productive way. - Marty Marty Humphrey Assistant Professor Department of Computer Science University of Virginia ________________________________________ From: Ian Foster [mailto:foster@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 9:54 AM To: Marty Humphrey; 'Ogsa-Wg' Cc: 'Marty Humphrey' Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28, noon-1:30 Marty, Steven: It is of course feasible, in principle, to define many different profiles for OGSA. E.g., one could build one on WS-Transfer and friends, one could build one that uses a different construct than the WS-Addressing EPR to address things, one could define one that uses JINI mechanisms, one could define one that uses CORBA, one could define one that renames all of the current WSRF and WS-Notification calls to be slightly different (oh wait, that's the first in the list (-: ), etc. Given the wide variety of possible alternative profiles, it would be helpful for those like me who are considering attending the BOF to know what more specifically what the goal of this work is going to be. The name doesn't provide any information, other than to imply, perhaps, that the interfaces on which the WSRF profile builds are not in some manner "minimal" and/or "simple." I.e., can you define the goals of the BOF more precisely other than "not WSRF"? Regards -- Ian. At 09:11 AM 6/21/2005 -0400, Marty Humphrey wrote: Folks, There have been a number of informal conversations lately about the feasibility/value/implications of a possible non-WSRF-based profile for OGSA. To bring all interested parties together at the same time, a BOF has been scheduled for Tuesday June 28 noon-1:30 (unfortunately at the same time as the EGA session, but there were no good times available). The agenda is still being finalized, but we expect to broadly discuss the pros/cons of such an effort, and, if the BOF attendees decide that such an effort would be valuable, produce a concrete plan for the formation of a Working Group. Here is the information that Steven Newhouse provided for the GGF organizers: "A BOF meeting to discuss the creation of a WG to define an OGSA Basic Profile that builds upon a minimal set of simple web services. The output of the group would be a document, similar in nature to the OGSA WSRF Basic Profile that would allow OGSA services to be rendered using an alternative set of WS specifications." I hope you can attend this (hopefully) productive and constructive session! -- Marty and Steven Marty Humphrey Assistant Professor Department of Computer Science University of Virginia _______________________________________________________________ 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

4 9