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

Minor edits on OGSA WSRF BP 1.0
by Hiro Kishimoto 06 Jul '05

06 Jul '05

Hi all, I've fixed minor editorial isses on OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 v020. (now it is v021). I don't touch security section (section 8) and appendix E, since Frank is now working on. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-wsrf-b… Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Open issues on OGSA WSRF BP 1.0
by Hiro Kishimoto 06 Jul '05

06 Jul '05

Hi Tom and Dave, Following is a list of open issues on OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 v020. It includes existing comments in the document but does not cover security section (section 8) or appendix E, which Frank is now working on. Page and line number is based on v020. (a1) page 5 line 200 E0302 claims extensibility elements for wsa:Metadata? Is extensibility for wsa:ReferenceParameters necessary? (a2) page 5 line 211 Since there is no amendment in the Profile, should we delete this line? (a3) page 8 line 339 (Latha's comment) We probably want to say something here about throwing the same faults that GetMultipleResourceProperties message does. Same comment for all other messages such as Destroy, Subscribe etc. Perhaps we can address this in the next rev. after GGF14. (a4) page 9 line 363 (Tom's comment) There are 2 specs need to chose which is appropriate. Still needs work. (a5) page 9 line 384 5.2 Scheduled Destruction should be added. (a6) page 9 line 394 (Jem and Latha's comment) Tom, we need to clarify this a bit. The comma I removed created some ambiguity, but we’re (Latha and I) are not sure exactly what the intent of this is. (a7) page 10 line 412 (Tom's comment) Add MESSAGE reqt. (a8) page 10 line 440 Don't we need extensibility points for Base Faults? I think we need to carry detailed fault information. (a9) page 11 line 450 Since there is no amendment in the Profile, should we delete this line? (a10) page 13 Contributers and acknowledgment sections. (a11) page 24 WS-BN should be evolving before final submission. Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

GGF 14
by Steven Newhouse 05 Jul '05

05 Jul '05

All, We had two good sessions at GGF 14. Updated documents etc. will be posted over the next few days. Calls will resume on 14th July - details and agenda will be posted next week. Also, this will be the final cross post to the ogsa-wg mailing list. If you want to follow the Basic Execution Service Working Group please join the ogsa-bes-wg mailing list in the usual way. Regards, 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

1 0

Proposed agenda for July 6th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 05 Jul '05

05 Jul '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on July 6th Wednesday from 5pm to 7pm (CDT). 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: 0706 See more explanation: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html 1) Early discussion (20 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Telecon minutes approval (June 22) http://tinyurl.com/5fxfd/minutes-20050622/en/1 Agenda bashing 2) GGF14 sessions evaluation (20 min) Please upload your materials and minutes to GridForge 3) August F2F meeting planning (20 min) Proposal is Aug 29-Sept 2 at San Diego Supercomputing Center. See attached slides. 4) OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 review (60 min) 5) Wrap up AOB ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

GRIDToday article "Report from GGF14: Finally, OGSA is Real!"
by Hiro Kishimoto 04 Jul '05

04 Jul '05

Report from GGF14: Finally, OGSA is Real! By Alan J. Weissberger, Contributing Author 1. OGSA WG Comes of Age First and foremost among the GGF14 happenings was the emergence of the OGSA WG as a viable standards setting body, rather than a "castles in the sky" committee developing abstract architectural concepts that could not be implemented. After years of discussion, the OGSA WG has now identified a core set of Web services standards and described how they can be used together to form the basic building block for Grids. http://news.taborcommunications.com/msgget.jsp?mid=412070&xsl=story.xsl -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

NO OGSA-WG call on July 4th
by Hiro Kishimoto 02 Jul '05

02 Jul '05

Hi all, Thank you very much for all of you who came to GGF14. We've accomplished three critical documents and made GGF14 historic event! (especially for me :-) Since 4th of July is US holiday, we have NO call on Monday. Our next call is on Wednesday July 6th. Thanks again and enjoy Independence Day holiday, ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

No RM teleconference on July 5th
by Fred Maciel 02 Jul '05

02 Jul '05

Hi, Let's skip the RM teleconference on July 5th, while I think how to move the resource modeling work ahead. Regards, Fred Maciel.

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28, noon-1:30
by Dave Berry 01 Jul '05

01 Jul '05

After more thought, I'll modify my original position (for what it's worth). If the industrial supporters of WS-Transfer et al actively engage in an OGSA profile, then we should start a.s.a.p. I would very much like to see those companies involved in OGSA and this would be a natural first "toe in the water". Also, it would be more hands to the OGSA pump rather than diverting so much of the existing effort. As always, just a personal point of view. Dave. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Berry Sent: 25 June 2005 16:14 To: Marty Humphrey; Ogsa-Wg Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28, noon-1:30 After some thought, my current opinion is that the right time to start work on a new basic profile will be when all the relevant specifications have been submitted to standards bodies. In the meantime, I would encourage people to concentrate on all the higher-level questions that we have yet to resolve - including a framework for describing, naming and managing resources, data transfer, advance reservation, security, delegation, privacy, agreement negotiation, information monitoring and dissemination, data access and replication, workflow, etc. I think OGSA is most likely to fail if we focus on low-level issues at the expense of the larger operations which users actually need and want from us. This approach is also in keeping with the 'O' in OGSA, which stands in large part for Open Standards. (FWIW, this is also true of the 'O' in OMII). In line with this reasoning, I regret that I won't be attending this BOF - which is why I'm posting my opinion here. In fact my position was partly crystallised by the realisation that the other sessions that clash this BOF are more important to me. This is not a position about whether to have multiple basic profiles at all, just on the timing of new work. And of course it's just my opinion. Dave. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Berry Sent: 22 June 2005 23:08 To: Marty Humphrey; Ogsa-Wg Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28, noon-1:30 Marty, The reason I asked about the status of the specifications was to clarify what sort of profile document could be produced at the present time. OGSA profiles are governed by a set of rules (https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-pr ofile-definition/en/12). Currently, if a group were to publish a profile document, it would have to be an Informational Profile. It could not be a Recommended Profile because the specifications are not yet in a standards body. Of course, this does not preclude people working on a draft profile with the intent of moving it into the publication process at some later date. I suggest that a question for the BOF to discuss is, given the above process, at what point does it become worth spending time on a draft profile? (I am not presuming an answer to this question one way or another). Switching to the question of WS-Enumeration, your answer seems to validate my initial concern. The issue that WS-Enumeration attempts to address is real and is considered in part by various working groups in the data area, but to me it doesn't seem part of a basic profile. Of course, the fact that I haven't seen a technical reason that links WS-Enumeration closely to the other specs doesn't mean that such a reason doesn't exist! Dave. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Marty Humphrey Sent: 22 June 2005 12:45 To: 'Ogsa-Wg' Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28, noon-1:30 > 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.? As you know, there is a 4-step process by which these specs will become standards: [1] "Develop", in which the spec is published; [2] "Broader Participation", in which there are feedback and interop workshops (resulting in possibly revising and republishing the specs); [3] "Standardization", in which the specs are submitted to a standardization body, which then can modify the spec as well and eventually ratify; [4] "Profiles", in which a separate document shows how to *combine* specs, generally resulting in a "subsetting" of the original specs. On Dec 1, 2004, Intel hosted a "feedback" workshop (step [2]), above, for WS-Enumeration and WS-Transfer. The companies attending the workshop included AMD, Computer Associates, Dell, HP, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, SAP, Sharp, Sonic, Sun, veritas, et. al. Although I can't entirely confirm this, it looks like the following companies brought implementations of WS-Enumeration/WS-Transfer to this workshop: Microsoft, Dell, Intel, NetIQ, Sun, and WebMethods. On Feb 19, 2004, Tibco hosted a "feedback" workshop for WS-Eventing. Attendees included Microsoft, BEA, IBM, NEC, Sonic, etc. On April 15, 2004, Microsoft hosted an "interop" workshop on WS-Eventing ("The outcome of the workshop was the demonstration of interoperability among all the 7 implementations." The seven implementations were from BEA, Canon, Epson, Microsoft, Ricoh, Sonic, and Systinet.) It looks like there will be another WS-Eventing workshop, although the date/time have not been announced. The most recent specs are: -- WS-Eventing: Aug 2004 (Authors: IBM, BEA, Computer Associates, Microsoft, Sun, and Tibco). This new version modifies the original version (Jan 2004, I believe) to reflect the workshops. -- WS-Enumeration: Sept 2004 (Authors: Systinet, Microsoft, Sonic, BEA, Computer Associates). This is the first version of the spec. -- WS-Transfer: Sept 2004 (Authors: Systinet, Microsoft, Sonic, BEA, Computer Associates). This is the first version of the spec. There's an interesting graphic that shows some of the progress from Microsoft's perspective here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/graphics/workshop-timeline.gif (this is taken from http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/community/workshops/default.aspx) > 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. I can see this point -- in our initial designs and experimentation with WS-Transfer and WS-Eventing, we chose to not utilize WS-Enumeration. But we are increasingly considering WS-Enumeration as an important part of the story. >From Felipe Cabrera of Microsoft: "Many scenarios require data exchange using more than just a single request/response message pair. Types of applications that require these longer data exchanges include database queries, data streaming, the traversal of information such as namespaces, and enumerating lists. Enumeration, in particular, is achieved through establishing a session between the data source and the requestor. This session is established using the Enumerate operation, which provides an enumeration context that is then used in subsequent operations. Successive messages within the session transport the collection of elements being retrieved. No assumptions are made on the approach used by the service to organize the items that will be produced. What is expected is that under normal processing circumstances, the enumeration will produce all the underlying data before the end of the session.... In its simplest form, WS-Enumeration defines a single operation, Pull, which allows a data source, in the context of a specific enumeration, to produce a sequence of XML elements in the body of a SOAP message.... Three more request/response operations are defined in WS-Enumeration: Renew, GetStatus, and Release.... State information regarding the progress of the iteration can be maintained between requests by either the data source or the consuming service.... In addition to enumerating the data entities present in a Web service, it is convenient to be able to perform several basic operations on them. These operations are introduced in the WS-Transfer operation." I hope this helps, Marty Marty Humphrey Assistant Professor Department of Computer Science University of Virginia

1 0