November 2006 - ogsa-wg - lists.ogf.org

Updated: OGSA Teleconference
by Andreas Savva 27 Nov '06

27 Nov '06

BEGIN:VCALENDAR PRODID:-//Microsoft Corporation//Outlook 11.0 MIMEDIR//EN VERSION:2.0 METHOD:REQUEST BEGIN:VEVENT ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;RSVP=TRUE:MAILTO:ogsa-wg@ogf.org ORGANIZER:MAILTO:andreas.savva@jp.fujitsu.com DTSTART:20061127T220000Z DTEND:20061128T000000Z TRANSP:OPAQUE SEQUENCE:2 UID:040000008200E00074C5B7101A82E00800000000D05E9F6D1612C7010000000000000000100 00000AB610ADED6AE0947A689DCF91A3B9530 DTSTAMP:20061127T024223Z DESCRIPTION:When: 2006年11月28日火曜日 7:00-9:00 (GMT+09:00) 大阪、札幌、東京.\n\n*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*\n\n<pre>\n\nThe following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Nov. 27th\nMonday from 4pm to 6pm (CST).\n\nThe dial-in number for Monday\;\n US: +1 718 3541071 (New York) or\n +1 408 9616509 (San Jose)\n UK: +44 (0)207 3655269 (London)\n Japan: +81 (0)3 3570 8225 (Tokyo)\n PIN: 4371991\n See more information:\n - https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/wiki1477\n\nScreen share service will be provided.\n URL: http://ogsa.glance.net\n Session key: 1127\n See more explanation:\n https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/wiki1584\n\n1) Early discussion (20 min)\n Note taker assignment\n Roll call\n Telecon minutes approval (Nov. 6)\n - https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc14002\n Action Items status review (see the bottom of this email)\n Agenda bashing\n\n2) OGSA roadmap v1.1 update (Chris Jordan\, 20 min)\n revised draft review\n\n3) F2F and SC06 debriefing (20 min)\n Feedback and impression on F2F and SC06.\n Minutes approval\n\nDocuments>Meeting Materials...>Interim Meetings>OGSA-16 - 2006 Nov\n\n If you have not yet upload your materials\, please\n do so before the call.\n\n4) OGSA secure channel document final review (Takuya Mori\, 30 min)\n\n> Takuya has updated the SP - Secure Channel profile as we discussed in the\n> Nov 2 conference call and has uploaded it onto GridForge.\n> \n> OGSA Security Profile 1.0 - Secure Channel:\n> https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/docman/do/downloadDocument/projects.ogsa-wg /docman.root.working_drafts.security_profile_1_0/doc13560/22\n> \n> The major changes are:\n> - deleted the references to the NIST guideline document\n> - added restrictions to recommend the use of recommended ciphersuites\n> in 3.2.2\n> - added non-normative tables which list some insecure and acceptable\n> ciphersuites in Appendex C\n> \n> P.S.:\n> Takuya has updated the referenced specification tables and have uploaded\n> the revised one.\n> https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/docman/do/downloadDocument/projects.ogsa-wg /docman.root.working_drafts.roadmap_1_1/doc13557/4\n\n5) EMS Arch scenarios document review (Andreas Savva\, 30 min)\n\n6) Wrap up\n AOB\n\n<*NEXT CALL*>\nhttps://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/wiki1477\n\nNov. 30 (Thu) Information/data modeling (Ellen and Fred)\n OGSA workflow (Andrew Grimshaw)\nDec. 4 (Mon) <No call> Management Developer Conference\nDec. 7 (Thu) <No call> GFSG F2F meeting\nDec. 11 (Mon) EGA reference model(Hiro Kishimoto and Paul Strong)\n Roadmap document (Chris Jordan)\n EMS Arch scenarios document review (Andreas Savva)\nDec. 14 (Thu) Information/data modeling (Ellen and Fred)\n OGSA security (Alan Sill and Andrew Grimshaw)\n OGSA workflow (Andrew Grimshaw)\n\n<*ACTION ITEMS*>\nhttps://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/wiki1569\n\n > From Nov. 9 pm F2F.\n AI.11.09.pm-a: Ellen and Tom to write up a "Information Model\n profile document: BES Container"\n AI.11.09.pm-b: Andrew Grimshaw to persuade the BES group that\n the BES spec version used for the interop should\n be the very one that is returned to the ADs to\n get published\n AI.11.09.pm-c: Andrew to produce a document drafting the definition\n of QoS\n AI.11.09.pm-d: Andrew to contact the HPCP WG regarding future\n involvement to create profile(s) on\, e.g. BES\, JSDL\n etc.\n\n > From Nov. 2nd call.\n AI-1102a: Hiro to ask whole group by email if it is OK to have\n one-way (presentation only\, no discussion)\n SML session on future telecon.\n\n > From Oct. 30 call.\n AI-1030a: Ellen will contact the DAIS-WG chairs and request they\n arrange a review DSP0225\n\n > From Sept. 15 OGSA F2F\n AI-0915d: Tom will post BP base faults issue to tracker\n\n > From Aug. 17 call\n AI-0817a: Dave Berry and Jay Unger will approach groups (GIN\,\n Globus\, etc) that have implemented practical grids and\n start a discussion on how they handle data:\n - how data is treated as a resource that can be scheduled\n - how transfers are modeled\n - how files are advertised\n - how applications find files (query\, by knowledge\,?)\n (Due Oct. 9)\n\n > From July 20 F2F\n- EGR-WG (Ravi) will contact Geoffrey Fox and invites him to\n contribute use cases.\n- Andreas to go through the minutes and formulate a reply mail to\n Geoffrey on each artifact covered in these minutes.\n\nPostponed:\nUntil next reference model call (Nov. 20):\n AI-1023c: Tom volunteered to review Hiro's HPC Cluster use case\n slides and make appropriate changes to indicate where the\n CIM Profile would fit in and how it would link into the\n Reference Model.\n AI-1023d: Paul will add more items to list on slide 6 of the HPC\n Cluster use case\n AI-1023f: Paul will review relevant OGF specs and give feedback to\n Hiro for the next version of the use case slide deck.\n AI-1023g: Hiro will look at other parts of slide 5 and identify\n further possible refinements of this use case.\n\nUntil next EMS call (Nov. 2):\n AI-0914a (Andreas Savva): Integrate the simple Data scenario just\n presented into the scenarios document\n AI-0913a: Andreas to update function names of BES.\n AI-0913b: Andrew to write-up a couple of such JM functionalities\n (short paragraph for each\, e.g. time constraint as JSDL\n extension.)\n AI-0913c: Andreas to add another scenario to use this “terminate”\n method of activity interface.\n AI-0913e: Andreas to separate un-deployment as a separate scenario.\n AI-0913f: Andreas to describe relation between ACS and CDDLM.\n AI-0913g: Donal to provide his proposal on\n "ActivityExecutionCandidate."\n AI-0831e: (A Savva) Talk to ACS working group for refining this\n scenario.\n AI-0831f: (A Savvva) Research RNS and probably update the EMS Arch\n Scenarios document\n\n</pre>\n\n SUMMARY:Updated: OGSA Teleconference PRIORITY:5 X-MICROSOFT-CDO-IMPORTANCE:1 CLASS:PUBLIC BEGIN:VALARM TRIGGER:-PT15M ACTION:DISPLAY DESCRIPTION:Reminder END:VALARM END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR

1 0

Proposed agenda for Nov. 27th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 27 Nov '06

27 Nov '06

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Nov. 27th Monday from 4pm to 6pm (CST). The dial-in number for Monday; US: +1 718 3541071 (New York) or +1 408 9616509 (San Jose) UK: +44 (0)207 3655269 (London) Japan: +81 (0)3 3570 8225 (Tokyo) PIN: 4371991 See more information: - https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/wiki1477 Screen share service will be provided. URL: http://ogsa.glance.net Session key: 1127 See more explanation: https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/wiki1584 1) Early discussion (20 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Telecon minutes approval (Nov. 6) - https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc14002 Action Items status review (see the bottom of this email) Agenda bashing 2) OGSA roadmap v1.1 update (Chris Jordan, 20 min) revised draft review 3) F2F and SC06 debriefing (20 min) Feedback and impression on F2F and SC06. Minutes approval Documents>Meeting Materials...>Interim Meetings>OGSA-16 - 2006 Nov If you have not yet upload your materials, please do so before the call. 4) OGSA secure channel document final review (Takuya Mori, 30 min) > Takuya has updated the SP - Secure Channel profile as we discussed in the > Nov 2 conference call and has uploaded it onto GridForge. > > OGSA Security Profile 1.0 - Secure Channel: > https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/docman/do/downloadDocument/projects.ogsa-wg/… > > The major changes are: > - deleted the references to the NIST guideline document > - added restrictions to recommend the use of recommended ciphersuites > in 3.2.2 > - added non-normative tables which list some insecure and acceptable > ciphersuites in Appendex C > > P.S.: > Takuya has updated the referenced specification tables and have uploaded > the revised one. > https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/docman/do/downloadDocument/projects.ogsa-wg/… 5) EMS Arch scenarios document review (Andreas Savva, 30 min) 6) Wrap up AOB <*NEXT CALL*> https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/wiki1477 Nov. 30 (Thu) Information/data modeling (Ellen and Fred) OGSA workflow (Andrew Grimshaw) Dec. 4 (Mon) <No call> Management Developer Conference Dec. 7 (Thu) <No call> GFSG F2F meeting Dec. 11 (Mon) EGA reference model(Hiro Kishimoto and Paul Strong) Roadmap document (Chris Jordan) EMS Arch scenarios document review (Andreas Savva) Dec. 14 (Thu) Information/data modeling (Ellen and Fred) OGSA security (Alan Sill and Andrew Grimshaw) OGSA workflow (Andrew Grimshaw) <*ACTION ITEMS*> https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/wiki1569 > From Nov. 9 pm F2F. AI.11.09.pm-a: Ellen and Tom to write up a "Information Model profile document: BES Container" AI.11.09.pm-b: Andrew Grimshaw to persuade the BES group that the BES spec version used for the interop should be the very one that is returned to the ADs to get published AI.11.09.pm-c: Andrew to produce a document drafting the definition of QoS AI.11.09.pm-d: Andrew to contact the HPCP WG regarding future involvement to create profile(s) on, e.g. BES, JSDL etc. > From Nov. 2nd call. AI-1102a: Hiro to ask whole group by email if it is OK to have one-way (presentation only, no discussion) SML session on future telecon. > From Oct. 30 call. AI-1030a: Ellen will contact the DAIS-WG chairs and request they arrange a review DSP0225 > From Sept. 15 OGSA F2F AI-0915d: Tom will post BP base faults issue to tracker > From Aug. 17 call AI-0817a: Dave Berry and Jay Unger will approach groups (GIN, Globus, etc) that have implemented practical grids and start a discussion on how they handle data: - how data is treated as a resource that can be scheduled - how transfers are modeled - how files are advertised - how applications find files (query, by knowledge,?) (Due Oct. 9) > From July 20 F2F - EGR-WG (Ravi) will contact Geoffrey Fox and invites him to contribute use cases. - Andreas to go through the minutes and formulate a reply mail to Geoffrey on each artifact covered in these minutes. Postponed: Until next reference model call (Nov. 20): AI-1023c: Tom volunteered to review Hiro's HPC Cluster use case slides and make appropriate changes to indicate where the CIM Profile would fit in and how it would link into the Reference Model. AI-1023d: Paul will add more items to list on slide 6 of the HPC Cluster use case AI-1023f: Paul will review relevant OGF specs and give feedback to Hiro for the next version of the use case slide deck. AI-1023g: Hiro will look at other parts of slide 5 and identify further possible refinements of this use case. Until next EMS call (Nov. 2): AI-0914a (Andreas Savva): Integrate the simple Data scenario just presented into the scenarios document AI-0913a: Andreas to update function names of BES. AI-0913b: Andrew to write-up a couple of such JM functionalities (short paragraph for each, e.g. time constraint as JSDL extension.) AI-0913c: Andreas to add another scenario to use this “terminate” method of activity interface. AI-0913e: Andreas to separate un-deployment as a separate scenario. AI-0913f: Andreas to describe relation between ACS and CDDLM. AI-0913g: Donal to provide his proposal on "ActivityExecutionCandidate." AI-0831e: (A Savva) Talk to ACS working group for refining this scenario. AI-0831f: (A Savvva) Research RNS and probably update the EMS Arch Scenarios document ---- Hiro Kishimoto

3 2

BES Comments
by Strong, Paul 24 Nov '06

24 Nov '06

All, I have been attempting to catch up on BES and was reading the v1.0 document. I have some questions and comments. Please note that I have no context from meetings or discussions about BES so please forgive my ignorance, I may be missing important context or details :o) i) Why are there 2 client focused interfaces (3 interfaces in total)? It is very natural for there to be 2 interfaces to a service/component, one focused on delivering client functionality and one for manageability. It is also natural to minimize the number of interfaces and the calls across them so as to aid maintainability. It would appear to me that the difference between the two BES client interfaces is that one allows activities to be created and for collections of activities to be monitored and managed. The other is focused on individual activities, but includes very similar functionality. There seems to be a lot of commonality. What are the reasons for them not being combined? Indeed as I read further I note that BES-Activity exposes no operations, so perhaps this interface is being deprecated and the document is in the process of being edited? ii) Why does the state model not end in one terminated state? Are there any real differences between the 3 enumerated end states other than how the activity ended up in the state? iii) Also it seems somewhat counter intuitive that if one is going to have three termination states, one should end up in the one state which reflects both success and failure (Finished) and a separate one for failures that prevent the activity from exiting in a controlled fashion. It seems like the transitions to the terminated state should be something like - a. Completed Successfully b. Failed c. Cancelled iv) Is there any notion of a retry, given that the state machine captures failure? Or perhaps rescheduling? For example one could imagine additional useful transitions - a. Pending to Pending - i.e. rescheduling b. Running to Pending - i.e. failed/retrying Having these in the base profile or basic model would enable greater flexibility in implementing future profiles where one could request that the BES container implement retries or allow rescheduling. Or are you categorically stating that users will never be able to reschedule or request automatic retries. Again if this is the case, it should probably be explicitly stated. I would actually urge you to make the base specification as broad as possible in terms of the acceptable state changes at this level to avoid unnecessarily constraining yourself down the line. I think this is especially important given what is stated in 4.2. v) Labeling of the state transitions would be most helpful, together with the adoption of standard UML statechart representation. Included is a state transition diagram which includes a few additional transitions which may, or may not be helpful/appropriate. :o) vi) 4.2 - State Specialization really seems to be indicating that this specification makes no assumptions with respect to sub-states that may be incorporated within an implementation but that such sub-states are acceptable as long as they do not introduce new state transitions between the standard, specified states. It would be very helpful to simply state this before all of the examples. vii) Do you expect to extend the BES model to activities that are not binaries running on operating systems? Regards Paul

2 1

Call for papers:DeSeGov 2007- The 2nd International Workshop "Dependability and Security in e-Government"-Submission Deadline 15-12-2006
by Nguyen Manh Tho 24 Nov '06

24 Nov '06

Apologies for multiple copies due to cross postings. Please send to interested colleagues and students) --------------------------------------------------------------------- The 2nd International Workshop "Dependability and Security in e-Government" (DeSeGov 2007) http://desegov.ares-conference.eu/ http://www.ares-conference.eu/conf/ --> Workshop -->DeSeGov --------------------------------------------------------------------- Vienna, April 10 -13 2007 in conjunction with The Second International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security ( ARES 2007 ) http://www.ares-conference.eu/conf/ Call for Papers --------------- Many governments have now significant e-government applications that offer more and more the day-to-day services to the citizen. ICT infrastructure has become as important as government offices and its officials: crucial for the functioning of the state. Modern government is today dependent on its functioning ICT: the systems must be available, reliable, safe, confidential, integer and secure. The aim of this workshop is to foster a forum for discussing and presenting recent research results on dependability and security in e-Government applications. Scientific rigor and discussions of state of the art of dependability and security in e-Government are strongly encouraged. Besides, innovative research work in progress and studies of dependability aspects of practical e-Government projects and systems implementation are also welcome. Topics of interest include, although not limited to, the following: . Trust and security: provisions and instruments . Online availability of public services . Service survivability and maintainability . Interoperability of services . Security in e-democracy (including e-participation and e-voting) . E-justice (administration and workflow security for legal processes) . Secure federating information access (from different government and third party agencies) . Security and reliability in media integration . Secure e-government and Identity Management . Security and reliability of Smart Card System . Availability and reliability of mobile services . Data protection and data privacy (e.g. e-health and e-education) . Intrusion detection and prevention . Anti-spam legislation and solution . Public-private- partnerships management . Role-based management and usage restriction Important Dates --------------- Submission Deadline: December, 15th 2006 Author Notification: January, 14th 2007 Author Registration: January, 21st 2007 Proceedings Version: January, 21st 2007 Conference/Workshop: April 10-13th, 2007 Submission Guidelines --------------------- The proceedings of this workshop will be published by IEEE. Authors are invited to submit their papers in the IEEE Computer Society Proceedings Manuscripts format (two columns, single-spaced, including figures and references, using 10 fonts, and number each page). The IEEE Computer Society Proceedings Author Guidelines are available at the following web page: URL: http://computer.org/cspress/instruct.htm or http://www.tinmith.net/tabletop2006/IEEE/Format/instruct.htm Submission are classified into 3 categories (1) full paper (8 pages), (2) short paper (5 pages), and (3) poster (2 pages) representing original, previously unpublished work. Submitted papers will be carefully evaluated based on originality, significance, technical soundness, and clarity of exposition. Contact author must provide the following information: paper title, authors' names, affiliations, postal address, phone, fax, and e-mail address of the author(s), about 200-250 word abstract, and about five keywords and register at our ARES website: http://www.ares-conference.eu/conf/. Prepare your paper in PDF or MS Word file and submit it to our site at http://www.ares-conference.eu/conf/ The online submission system will be available at the begining of October 2006. Submission of a paper implies that should the paper be accepted, at least one of the authors will register and present the paper in the conference. Accepted papers will be given guidelines in preparing and submitting the final manuscript(s) together with the notification of acceptance. Publication ----------- All accepted papers (full and short papers) will be published by IEEE Computer Society. Workshop Chairpersons --------------------- A Min Tjoa, Vienna University of Technology, Austria Erich Schweighofer, University of Vienna, Austria Tho Manh Nguyen, Vienna University of Technology, Austria Programme Committee ------------------- Nabil Adam, Rutgers University, USA Jaro Berce, University Of Ljubljana, Slovenia Jean Camp, Indiana University, USA Eugene Christov Nickolov, Sofia University, Bulagaria Matthew J. Dovey, JISC Executive, UK Jos Dumortier, Interdisciplinary Centre for Law & ICT (ICRI), Belgium Dieter Fensel, Deri Innsbruck, Austria Fernando Galindo, University of Zaragoza, Spain Panagiotis Georgiadis, University of Athens, Greece Lepouras Georgios, University of Peloponnese, Greece Dimitris Gouscos, University of Athens, Greece Juris Jon Bing, University of Oslo, Norway Robert Krimmer, Competence Center for Electronic Participation and Electronic Voting, Austria Ram Kumar, Sakthisoft Pty. Ltd, Australia Mike Lavine, Johns Hopkins University, USA Mark Little, Redhat, USA Yannis Manolopoulos, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Carl Mattocks, MetLife Consultant, USA Scott Midkiff, Virginia Tech, USA Tho Manh Nguyen, Vienna University of Technology, Austria Mourad Ouzzani, Purdue University, USA Erich Schweighofer, University of Vienna, Austria Gavenraj "Raj" Sodhi, CA, Inc., USA Efthimios Tambouris, CERTH/ITI, Greece A Min Tjoa, Vienna University of Technology, Austria Costas Vassilakis, University of Peloponnese, Greece Tanja Zseby, Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communication System, Germany

1 0

Paul Strong's HPC usecase DAG
by Hiro Kishimoto 24 Nov '06

24 Nov '06

Hi all, I've upload Paul's DAG and State Transition UML diagram to the GridForege which was reviewed on Nov. 20th call. https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc14034 > 1) Powerpoint of one (of several) possible DAGs for > HPC. This is one of potentially several different renderings. > > 2) HPC State Transition In UML - UML representation of > the diagram in the BES v1.0 doc > > 3) HPC State Transition 2 In UML - UML pulling this > together with EGA Ref Model showing an implied state (Defined) and > implied transitions. Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Some more glossary terms
by Treadwell, Jem 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

Hi, On Monday's call we discussed definitions for data center, state and a combined definition of grid (form OGSA) and grid computing (from EGA). The results: Data center was agreed with only minor modification: A facility that houses critical computer systems and associated components. Data centers generally include environmental controls (air conditioning, fire suppression, etc.), backup power supplies, redundant network connections and high security. Larger enterprises may have multiple data centers, often geographically distant but connected by high-capacity network connections. Conversely, in an outsourcing environment multiple enterprises may share resources housed in a single data center. State: The definition I proposed in the working doc was considered to be OK but not satisfying, so Jay's on the hook to come up with a better one. Grid, grid computing: My suggestion was to combine the very formal OGSA definition with the EGA's longer, bulleted description. The consensus was that the detail of the EGA definition was fine, but that we should try to reduce it to a shorter (non-bulleted) form. My attempt to do that is below. I think I captured pretty much everything that was in the bullets, but I have *not* attempted to go beyond that. If you have comments or suggestions, please try to avoid making it taller (column-inches do matter!). Also note that I didn't consider changing the first para, which is the original OGSA formal definition, and nobody on the call suggested that we should. Here's what I have: A grid is a system that is concerned with the integration, virtualization, and management of services and resources in a distributed, heterogeneous environment that supports collections of users and resources (virtual organizations) across traditional administrative and organizational domains (real organizations). Less formally, a grid computing environment combines distributed pools of resources onto which applications or services may be dynamically provisioned and re-provisioned, to improve economy, efficiency, agility, performance, scaling, resilience and utilization. The contributed resources are often consolidated from numerous smaller pools, where they may have been under-utilized, and as a result grids tend to be heterogeneous. Grids offer great flexibility, as resources can be re-purposed or re‑provisioned in line with an organization’s changing goals. They typically focus on services rather than components, and are built using architectural styles such as service-oriented architecture, which are disaggregated or distributed in nature and can leverage the properties of the available resources. Key requirements for successful grid implementation and management include standardization of the interfaces of common components, and the use of standardized information and data models. Grid computing is related to, but subtly different from, utility computing. Thanks: for those on holiday tomorrow, have a great one, and for those who aren't, have a great one too! - 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>

3 2

Call for papers:Workshop "Dependability Aspects on Data WArehousing and Mining applications" (DAWAM 2007)- Submission Deadline 17-12-2006
by Nguyen Manh Tho 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

(Apologies for multiple copies due to cross postings. Please send to interested colleagues and students) CALL FOR PAPERS --------------------------------------------------------------------- Second International Workshop "Dependability Aspects on Data WArehousing and Mining applications" DAWAM 2007. http://dawam.ares-conference.eu/conf/ http://www.ares-conference.eu/conf/ --> Workshop -->DAWAM --------------------------------------------------------------------- in conjunction with The Second International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security - ARES 2007 (http://www.ares-conference.eu/conf/) Overview -------- Nowadays, the rapid growth of information technologies has brought tremendous opportunities for data sharing, integration, and analysis across multiple distributed, heterogeneous data sources. In the past decade, data warehousing and mining are the well-known technologies used for data analysis and knowledge discovery in vast domain of applications. Data mining technology has emerged as a means of identifying patterns and trends from large quantities of data. Data mining has used a data warehousing model of gathering all data into a central site, then running an algorithm against that data. A growing attention has been paid to the study, development and application of data warehousing and mining. Nevertheless, dependability aspects in these applications such as availability, reliability, integrity, privacy, and security issues are still being investigated. For example, in data warehousing applications, privacy considerations may prevent the approach of collecting data into the centralized warehouse because each data source has different privacy policy. Furthermore, the complexity of security increases as different sources of information are combined. Reliable, consistent and trustworthy of information are also significant requirements in data warehousing applications. Data mining has been shown to be beneficial in confronting various types of attacks to computer systems such as fraud detection, intrusion prevention. In some applications, e.g. clinic information system, government management, business competitive information, it is required to apply the mining algorithms without observing the confidential data values thus demands the privacy preservation. There are also many challenging issues that need further investigation in the context of data mining from both privacy and security perspectives such as mining of imbalanced data, bioinformatics data, streaming data, ubiquitous computing data, grid computing data etc. The goals of this workshop are to bring together users, engineers and researchers (from industry and academy) alike to present their recent work, discuss and identify problems, synergize different views of techniques and policies, and brainstorm future research directions on various dependability aspects of data warehousing and data mining applications. We strongly encourage researchers and practitioners with interest in the areas of reliability, availability, privacy and security, databases, data warehousing, data mining, and statistics to submit their experience, and/or research results. Topics related to any of dependability aspects in data warehousing and mining, theory, systems and applications are of interest. These include, but are not limited to the following areas: · Dependability and fault tolerance · High Availability and Disaster Recovery · Survivability of evaluative systems · Reliability and Robustness Issues · Accuracy and reliability of responses · Reliable and Failure Tolerant Business Process Integration · Reliable Event Management and Data Stream Processing · Failure Tolerant and trustworthy Sensor Networks · Highly available data warehouses for business processes integration · Handling different or incompatible formats, and erroneous data · Privacy and security policies and social impact of data mining · Privacy preserving data integration · Access control techniques and secure data models · Encryption & Authentication · Pseudonymization and Encryption · Anonymization and pseudonymization · Trust management, and security · Security in Aggregation and Generalization · User Profile Based Security · Secure multi-party computation · Secondary use of personal data, clinic data, credit record · Fraud and misuse detection · Intrusion detection and tolerance · Data mining applications for terrorist detection · Private queries by a (semi-trusted) third party · Query authentication, logging, auditing, access control and authorization policies The program of the workshop will be a combination of invited talks, paper/poster presentations and discussions. Important Dates --------------- Submission Deadline: December, 17th 2006 Author Notification: January, 14th 2007 Author Registration: January, 21st 2007 Proceedings Version: January, 21st 2007 Conference/Workshop: April 10-13th, 2007 Submission Guidelines --------------------- Authors are invited to submit research and application papers in IEEE Computer Society Proceedings Manuscripts style (two columns, single-spaced, including figures and references, using 10 fonts, and number each page). You can confirm the IEEE Computer Society Proceedings Author Guidelines at the following web page: URL: http://computer.org/cspress/instruct.htm or http://www.tinmith.net/tabletop2006/IEEE/Format/instruct.htm Submission are classified into 2 categories (1) full paper (8 pages) and (2) short paper (5 pages) representing original, previously unpublished work. Submitted papers will be carefully evaluated based on originality, significance, technical soundness, and clarity of exposition. Contact author must provide the following information: paper title, authors' names, affiliations, postal address, phone, fax, and e-mail address of the author(s), about 200-250 word abstract, and about five keywords and register at our ARES website: http://www.ares-conference.eu/conf/ You can also prepare your paper in PDF file and send it to the workshop co-chair: Dr. Nguyen Manh Tho, Institute of Software Technology, Vienna University of Technology, via email: tho(a)ifs.tuwien.ac.at Submission of a paper implies that should the paper be accepted, at least one of the authors will register and present the paper in the conference. Accepted papers will be given guidelines in preparing and submitting the final manuscript(s) together with the notification of acceptance. Publication ----------- All accepted papers (full and short papers) will be published as ISBN proceedings published by IEEE Computer Society. Based on quality and referee reviews, some papers not suitable for acceptance as full paper will be accepted for presentation at DAWAM 2007 as short paper or Poster presentation category and will be also included in the IEEE Proceedings. A selected number of papers will be nominated to be published as special issues in appropriate journals such as Journal of automatic and trusted computing (JoATC). Workshop Organizer Co-chairs ---------------------------- Jimmy Huang, Prof., School of Information Technology, York University, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3J 1P3 jhuang(a)yorku.ca Josef Schiefer, Ph.D. Senactive IT-Dienstleistungs GmbH, Phorusgasse 8 A1040 Vienna, Austria josef.schiefer(a)senactive.com Nguyen Manh Tho, Ph.D. (main contact) Institute of Software Technique and Interactive System, Vienna University of Technology, Favoriten strasse 9-11/188 A1040 Vienna, Austria tho(a)ifs.tuwien.ac.at Program Committee ----------------- Jemal Abbawajy, Deakin University, Australia Mikhail Atallah, Purdue University, USA Barbara Carminati, University of Insubria at Varese, Italy Pawan Chowdhary, IBM T. J. Watson Research Center, USA Hervé Debar, France Télécom R&D, France Josep Domingo-Ferrer, Rovira i Virgili University of Tarragona, Spain Ulrich Flegel, University of Dortmund, Germany Tyrone Grandison, IBM Almaden Research, USA Jimmy Huang, York University, Canada James Joshi, University of Pittsburgh, USA Christopher Kruegel, Vienna University of Technology, Austria Xue Li, The University of Queensland Brisbane, Australia Zongwei Luo, The University of Hong Kong, China Henrique Madeira, University of Coimbra, Portugal Michael May, Fraunhofer AIS, Germany Nasrullah Memon, Aalborg University Esbjerg, Denmark Taneli Mielikäinen, University of Helsinki, Finland Tho Manh Nguyen, Vienna University of Technology, Austria Daniel O'Leary, University of Southern California, USA Torsten Priebe, Capgemini Consulting Österreich AG, Vienna, Austria Raghav Rao, SUNY at Buffalo, USA Yücel Saygin, Sabanci University, Turkey Josef Schiefer, Senactive IT-Dienstleistungs GmbH, Austria Ben Soh, La Trobe University, Australia Toshihiro Tabata, Okayama University, Japan David Taniar, Monash University, Australia Vassilios S. Verykios, University of Thessaly, Greece Duminda Wijesekera, George Mason University, USA Yanjiang Yang, Singapore Management University, Singapore Justin Zhan, Carnegie Mellon University, USA Sheng Zhong, SUNY at Buffalo, USA

1 0

Blog about OGSA
by Thomas Soddemann 22 Nov '06

22 Nov '06

Hi folks, Has anybody seen this blog about OGSA: http://go.techtarget.com/r/763634/2740371 I fear the author does not completely correct in his view of OGSA. E.g. he does not mention GGF/OGF at all. Regards, Thomas

1 0

Re: [ogsa-wg] HPC profile questionaire draft
by Subramaniam, Ravi 22 Nov '06

22 Nov '06

Hi Andrew, One question could be "Is the profile as it stands complete from your perspective? At least for the focus/business areas or types of customers that you plan to implement for?" The motivation is that depending on the verticals (e.g. financial, pharma) there may be some issue that may need to be resolved to be successful. In this way at least some target constituencies that can best benefit from what is currently there can be determined. We can also begin more targeted campaign at the OGF level towards consumers/customers/end-users and providers in that segments. Building traction in one of more specific segments may help build momentum for others. Ravi ________________________________ From: ogsa-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Maguire_Tom(a)emc.com Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 11:12 AM To: grimshaw(a)cs.virginia.edu; ogsa-wg(a)gridforum.org; ogsa-hpcp-wg(a)ggf.org; ogsa-bes-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] HPC profile questionaire draft Is there enough specificity in the profile for your engineers to successfully implement? If not what do you need? Tom _______________________________________________ Tom Maguire +1(845) 729-4806 ________________________________ From: ogsa-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Grimshaw Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 10:21 AM To: 'Ogsa-Wg'; ogsa-hpcp-wg(a)ggf.org; ogsa-bes-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: [ogsa-wg] HPC profile questionaire draft All, At the OGSA F2F I was tasked with coming up with a series of questions about the HPC profile experiences to go into a zoomerang, so that an experiences paper could be generated - either for HPC profile, JSDL, and/or BES. Here is a start. Note - comment on/add questions. Do NOT answer them!!! That will come later. 1) Will the HPC-Profile be useful to your organization/company? Explain. 2) Will you engineer your products to be hpc-profile compliant? 3) In your opinion, are there any unresolved ambiguities? Explain? 4) Thoughts on the next profile? Anything in particular from BES or JSDL (or other specification) that you would like to include. 5) Approximately how many person-days did it take you to implement the HPC-profile? 6) What would you change in the HPC-profile? Why? Remember this is a STRAWMAN ONLY for discussion! Please add, suggest removal, or modify the above. A Andrew Grimshaw Professor of Computer Science University of Virginia 434-982-2204 grimshaw(a)cs.virginia.edu

7 12

Proposed agenda for Nov. 20th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 21 Nov '06

21 Nov '06

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Nov. 20th Monday from 4pm to 6pm (CST). The dial-in number for Monday; US: +1 718 3541071 (New York) or +1 408 9616509 (San Jose) UK: +44 (0)207 3655269 (London) Japan: +81 (0)3 3570 8225 (Tokyo) PIN: 4371991 See more information: - https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/wiki1477 Screen share service will be provided. URL: http://ogsa.glance.net Session key: 1120 See more explanation: https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/wiki1584 1) Early discussion (20 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Telecon minutes approval (Nov. 6) - https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc14002 Action Items status review (see the bottom of this email) Agenda bashing 2) F2F and SC06 debriefing (20 min) Feedback and impression on F2F and SC06. Minutes approval Documents>Meeting Materials...>Interim Meetings>OGSA-16 - 2006 Nov If you have not yet upload your materials, please do so before the call. 3) EGA reference model (Paul and Hiro, 60 min) > Discussed whether the HPC Cluster use case is too simple. Though > some aspects look simple (submit/run) other aspects (pre-, post-) > should provide a good target for further refinement. > > AI-1023e: Hiro will send out references to relevant OGF specs, > e.g., BES and CDDLM > AI-1023f: Paul will review relevant OGF specs and give feedback to > Hiro for the next version of the use case slide deck. > AI-1023g: Hiro will look at other parts of slide 5 and identify > further possible refinements of this use case. See minutes from Oct. 23rd: - https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc13966 HPC usecase slides: - https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc13939 4) Glossary (Jem, 20 min) > So here are the remaining two definitions that we did discuss - I hope > these are general enough to be acceptable. > > Enterprise: > > In common use, a business organization. > > Within OGSA and the EGA Reference Model the term is applied to any > organization whose IT facilities and operations follow enterprise > computing practices, even if the organization does not have a > literal business focus. > > Enterprise computing: > > Computing to support the operation of an enterprise or other > organization. Characteristics typically include some subset of > the following: > > * Concentration of IT resources into one or more data centers. > * Operation of enterprise applications. > * Emphasis on satisfying customer expectations through the use > of SLOs. > * The need to be able to deploy and re-deploy resources rapidly > in response to business changes. > * Attention to maximizing value through effective use of resources, > and often by assigning operating costs to customer organizations > such as business units or departments. > > Notes: > - As I'm not writing in HTML here I can't show the italics, but > "enterprise applications" and others are references to other > definitions. > - We will probably need to change the phrase "EGA Reference > Model" at some point, and that is noted as a comment in the > document. Jem has uploaded an update to the discussion document - it's at - https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc13958 3) Wrap up AOB <*NEXT CALL*> https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/wiki1477 Nov. 23 (Thu) <No call> Thanksgiving Nov. 27 (Mon) OGSA secure channel document final review (Takuya Mori) Roadmap document (Chris Jordan) EMS Arch scenarios document review (Andreas Savva) Nov. 30 (Thu) Information/data modeling (Ellen and Fred) OGSA workflow (Andrew Grimshaw) Dec. 4 (Mon) <No call> Management Developer Conference Dec. 7 (Thu) <No call> GFSG F2F meeting Dec. 11 (Mon) EGA reference model(Hiro Kishimoto and Paul Strong) Roadmap document (Chris Jordan) EMS Arch scenarios document review (Andreas Savva) Dec. 14 (Thu) Information/data modeling (Ellen and Fred) OGSA security (Alan Sill and Andrew Grimshaw) OGSA workflow (Andrew Grimshaw) <*ACTION ITEMS*> https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/wiki1569 > From Nov. 9 pm F2F. AI.11.09.pm-a: Ellen and Tom to write up a "Information Model profile document: BES Container" AI.11.09.pm-b: Andrew Grimshaw to persuade the BES group that the BES spec version used for the interop should be the very one that is returned to the ADs to get published AI.11.09.pm-c: Andrew to produce a document drafting the definition of QoS AI.11.09.pm-d: Andrew to contact the HPCP WG regarding future involvement to create profile(s) on, e.g. BES, JSDL etc. > From Nov. 2nd call. AI-1102a: Hiro to ask whole group by email if it is OK to have one-way (presentation only, no discussion) SML session on future telecon. > From Oct. 30 call. AI-1030a: Ellen will contact the DAIS-WG chairs and request they arrange a review DSP0225 > From Sept. 15 OGSA F2F AI-0915d: Tom will post BP base faults issue to tracker > From Aug. 17 call AI-0817a: Dave Berry and Jay Unger will approach groups (GIN, Globus, etc) that have implemented practical grids and start a discussion on how they handle data: - how data is treated as a resource that can be scheduled - how transfers are modeled - how files are advertised - how applications find files (query, by knowledge,?) (Due Oct. 9) > From July 20 F2F - EGR-WG (Ravi) will contact Geoffrey Fox and invites him to contribute use cases. - Andreas to go through the minutes and formulate a reply mail to Geoffrey on each artifact covered in these minutes. Postponed: Until next reference model call (Nov. 20): AI-1023c: Tom volunteered to review Hiro's HPC Cluster use case slides and make appropriate changes to indicate where the CIM Profile would fit in and how it would link into the Reference Model. AI-1023d: Paul will add more items to list on slide 6 of the HPC Cluster use case AI-1023f: Paul will review relevant OGF specs and give feedback to Hiro for the next version of the use case slide deck. AI-1023g: Hiro will look at other parts of slide 5 and identify further possible refinements of this use case. Until next EMS call (Nov. 2): AI-0914a (Andreas Savva): Integrate the simple Data scenario just presented into the scenarios document AI-0913a: Andreas to update function names of BES. AI-0913b: Andrew to write-up a couple of such JM functionalities (short paragraph for each, e.g. time constraint as JSDL extension.) AI-0913c: Andreas to add another scenario to use this “terminate” method of activity interface. AI-0913e: Andreas to separate un-deployment as a separate scenario. AI-0913f: Andreas to describe relation between ACS and CDDLM. AI-0913g: Donal to provide his proposal on "ActivityExecutionCandidate." AI-0831e: (A Savva) Talk to ACS working group for refining this scenario. AI-0831f: (A Savvva) Research RNS and probably update the EMS Arch Scenarios document ---- Hiro Kishimoto

3 2