- ogsa-wg - lists.ogf.org

RE: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 'Challenging Timesfor GGF & Standards'
by Hiro Kishimoto 02 Mar '05

02 Mar '05

Marty's email bounced. ---- Hiro Kishimoto From: "Marty Humphrey" <humphrey(a)cs.virginia.edu> To: "'Mark Morgan'" <mmm2a(a)virginia.edu>, <daveb(a)nesc.ac.uk>, <gannon(a)cs.indiana.edu>, <foster(a)mcs.anl.gov> Cc: <meder(a)mcs.anl.gov>, <ogsa-wg(a)gridforum.org>, <tony.hey(a)epsrc.ac.uk>, "'Marty Humphrey'" <humphrey(a)cs.virginia.edu> Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 'Challenging Timesfor GGF & Standards' Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 13:26:55 -0500 Folks, At the risk of jumping into this late... We have a full-featured implementation of WSRF available right now via http://www.ws-rf.net Regarding "MS's position" on WSRF.... First, there is largely NOT a "single MS", as "Microsoft Research Cambridge" is not "Microsoft Research Redmond", and neither of them are "MS Corporate". My team's project interacts most closely with Microsoft Research Redmond, which neither "endorses" our work or "dismisses" our work because it may or may not conflict with "MS Corporate" business models and/or corporate specifications. I note however that we have a decent number of conversations with both Microsoft Research Redmond and Microsoft Corporate regarding our research project. Our dialogues focus on the utility of WSRF, the alternatives to WSRF, the use of the MS tooling, etc. Microsoft Research and Microsoft Corporate have always been very interested in our project -- what we're doing, and why. We have great feedback and conversations. I have nothing but good things to say about MS Corporate/Research. Our project's focus has always been, I believe, a proper mix of research and development. It's not necessarily our mission to ONLY build something that completely aligns with the Microsoft corporate mission and tooling -- neither is our mission to create something just for the sake of creating it! If the MS tooling and approach solves "The Problem"(tm), then we'll be happy to just use it. To date, I'm not sure that this is the case (hence our project's existence). In summary, I think we have a solid implementation of WSRF.NET and we're very committed to supporting it and broadening it. Please let me know if there are specific questions that I can answer! (As I mentioned, I jumped in a little late, so I'm not sure if I am really commenting on the "right" issues). -- Marty Marty Humphrey Assistant Professor Department of Computer Science University of Virginia > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf > Of Mark Morgan > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 12:10 PM > To: daveb(a)nesc.ac.uk; gannon(a)cs.indiana.edu; foster(a)mcs.anl.gov > Cc: meder(a)mcs.anl.gov; ogsa-wg(a)gridforum.org; tony.hey(a)epsrc.ac.uk > Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 'Challenging > Timesfor GGF & Standards' > > Isn't WSRF.NET at the University of Virginia essentially proof of > this? > > -- > Mark Morgan > Research Scientist > Department of Computer Science > University of Virginia > http://www.cs.virginia.edu > mmm2a(a)virginia.edu > (434) 982-2790 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf > > Of Dave Berry > > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 12:07 PM > > To: Dennis Gannon; Ian Foster > > Cc: Samuel Meder; ogsa-wg; Tony Hey > > Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 'Challenging > > Times for GGF & Standards' > > > > Hi Dennis, > > > > MS were definitely in evidence at the meeting that Tony reported in > > his GridToday article. Whether the MS people there represented > > official company policy is less clear, but certainly those people > > have had some influence in the UK e-Science community. > > > > Other people are concerned that if MS do not explicitly support > > WSRF, this will make it harder to develop and/or deploy Grid > > services on MS systems. WSRF supporters say that this will have no > > effect, as the support that MS has for WS-Addressing is sufficient. > > It seems to me that this question could be settled by experiment. A > > WSRF supporter who is fluent in .Net could sit down with some of the > > sceptics while they attempt to create a WSRF service. > > > > Dave. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] > > On Behalf > > > Of Dennis Gannon > > > Sent: 01 March 2005 12:54 > > > To: Ian Foster > > > Cc: Samuel Meder; ogsa-wg; Tony Hey > > > Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: > > > 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards' > > > > > > hi Ian, > > > i agree that this consistency is critical. But how much WSRF or > > > ws-trans/ws-enum must be visible to the application > > builder? Perhaps > > > it is essential that one or the other must be exposed. i > > don't know. > > > perhaps doing so just adds another layer abstraction layer as > > > frank suggests. but it may also be that we have defined the wrong > > > abstraction layers to start from. again, i don't know. > > > > > > my other point is this: i don't see this as a debate with > > MS. i see a > > > debate right in the core of GGF membership. from what i > > can see, MS > > > is a no-show at this party. > > > > > > dennis > > > > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Ian Foster wrote: > > > > > > > Dennis: > > > > > > > > I'm not sure that the "we don't need WSRF" is the heart of > > > the debate. If > > > > it was, then I think things are fairly clear: WSRF is just > > > some conventions > > > > for the messages that you send to do certain things (e.g., > > > > getResourceProperty to get state, Terminate to destroy > > something, or > > > > whatever the names are) in a WS context. If you don't have those > > > > conventions, then everyone ends up defining their own, so > > > that e.g. a job > > > > management interface might have "getJobStatus" and > > > "destroyJob", a file > > > > transfer interface might have "getTransferStatus" and > > > "destroyTransfer". > > > > This lack of consistency just makes life difficult, without > > > providing any > > > > benefits. > > > > > > > > The debate with MS, as I understand it, seems to rather > > > relate to the fact > > > > that they are promoting a *different* set of conventions > > > for doing similar > > > > things, e.g., WS-Transfer instead of WS-ResourceProperties. > > > > > > > > Ian. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 10:23 PM 2/28/2005 -0500, Dennis Gannon wrote: > > > > >hi Sam, > > > > >i don't think MS has any orchestrated view on WSRF at all > > > (but i may > > > > >be wrong.) I think it is more the case that there are > > > people working on > > > > >grid standards (outside of microsoft) that feel that what > > > exists in the > > > > >ws-spec world is sufficient. hence if there is any onus, > > > it is on those > > > > >folks to show us that this is true. what tony is saying > > > is that users, > > > > >i.e. application builders, should not have to deal with > > > these details. The > > > > >should see clearly defined OGSA services and they should > > > have an easy > > > > >to understand set of interaction patterns to use these > > > services to build > > > > >thier applications. the OGSA point of view is that to be > > > precise in > > > > >the definition of these behavior patterns requires a > > > framework like wsrf. > > > > > > > > > >i actually feel that these things can all coexist. but > > > from the politics > > > > >of "what is simple", we seem to live in interesting times. > > > > > > > > > >dennis > > > > > > > > > >On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Samuel Meder wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 14:38 -0800, Frank Siebenlist wrote: > > > > > > > Could anyone summarize MS' WS-view, and how it > > > differs from WSRF? > > > > > > > > > > > > So far I have not seen any substantial difference > > > between the two > > > > > > approaches and I definitely believe the onus is on MS > > > to show why people > > > > > > should adopt their proprietary specifications vs. > > > adopting something > > > > > > that is being developed in a open standards body, is > > > getting very close > > > > > > to a 1.0 version and has multiple implementations behind it. > > > > > > > > > > > > /Sam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Frank. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Absorbing article by Tony Hey. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >http://news.tgc.com/nview.jsp?appid=360&print=1#342708 > > > > > > > >---- > > > > > > > >Hiro Kishimoto > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> GRIDtoday > > > > > > > >> NEWS AND INFORMATION FOR THE GLOBAL > > > GRID COMMUNITY > > > > > > > >> --- February 28, 2005: Vol. > > 4, No. 8 --- > > > > > > > >> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > >>SPECIAL FEATURES > > > > > > > > > > >>============================================================== > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>[ ] M342708 ) WSRF? WS-*? Where is GGF's OGSA Headed? > > > > > > > >> By Tony Hey, Contributing Editor > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Tony Hey, director of e-Science for the > > > Engineering and Physical > > > > > > > >>Science Research Council, continues to elaborate > > > the need for open > > > > > > > >>standards in the realm of Web services-based Grid > > > computing. He > > > > > > > >>discusses the great debate of WSRF vs. WS-*, and > > > lays out what the > > > > > > GGF > > > > > > > >>must do with OGSA in order to give e-Science > > > application developers > > > > > > > >>something to rally around. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Sam Meder <meder(a)mcs.anl.gov> > > > > > > The Globus Alliance - University of Chicago 630-252-1752 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > > > Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster > > > > Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science > > > > Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago > > > > Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. > > > > Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 > > > > Globus Alliance, www.globus.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards'
by Savas Parastatidis 02 Mar '05

02 Mar '05

Dear Ian, > I'm not sure that the "we don't need WSRF" is the heart of the debate. If > it was, then I think things are fairly clear: WSRF is just some > conventions for the messages that you send to do certain things (e.g., > getResourceProperty to get state, Terminate to destroy something, or > whatever the names are) in a WS context. I think that there are still issues being debated as to when it is appropriate to use WSRF (or something like it) in the design of services for inter-enterprise/Internet-scale/Grid computing. For example, two issues that are I think worth discussion are efficiency and whether or not WSRF is needd to capture common application semantics. To take them in turn... a) efficiency. > If you don't have those > conventions, then everyone ends up defining their own, so that e.g. a job > management interface might have "getJobStatus" and "destroyJob", a file > transfer interface might have "getTransferStatus" and "destroyTransfer". The WSRF way of doing things promotes a view where all 'stateful resources' are addressable and able to receive messages (i.e. they are logical recipients of messages). As a result, service designers are encouraged to think in terms of messages that are targeted towards single resources. However, sending and receiving messages has a high cost when sending them across the Internet and there are many cases where it would be more efficient to define message interactions which involve multiple resources. For example sending the following message to a service: 'getJobStatus' of job1 and job2 and job3 and job4 and... jobN Is more efficient than sending individual messages to n individual resources of the form: 'getResourceProperties' jobK (the same would be true of 'destroyJob' vs WSRF 'destroy' messages). The former approach is a general case since it allows us to get the status of one or multiple jobs in one message. Also, it is application specific since the semantics of the interaction tells us what to expect. The latter approach is specific to only one resource at a time. Multiple message exchanges are necessary to achieve the same thing as the 'getJobStatus' approach or yet another abstraction (e.g. service groups, which introduces extra complexity and message exchanges) has to be introduced. Effectively the resource-oriented view of WSRF leads designers to inefficient use of the network and the services involved in interactions. Also, current Web Services tooling will allow me to easily define the getJobStatus message in WSDL and it will automatically generate the code for me. I do not see the great advantage of having a generic getResourceProperties message when it comes to designing high-level services: it is the structure and contents of the document returned that it is important, rather than how it is accessed. A generic getResourceProperties could be of use when we require common application semantics (in the same way REST is designed) and we need document transfer. However, in such a case the more lightweight solution of WS-Transfer with its CRUD semantics could be used. 2) Does WSRF capture common application semantics? > If you don't have those > conventions, then everyone ends up defining their own, so that e.g. a job > management interface might have "getJobStatus" and "destroyJob", a file > transfer interface might have "getTransferStatus" and "destroyTransfer". > This lack of consistency just makes life difficult, without providing any > benefits. > It is not clear to me how to model "kill", "cancel", "pause", "suspend" for a job using WSRF... all these messages carry different semantics that cannot be captured by a single "destroy" message. Also, is there a suggestion that the semantics of "destroy" are common across all application domains? For example, what does it mean to "destroy" a database resource? What can the sender of the message assume about the effect of the generic "destroy" message? Does it mean that the database is droped or just disconnected? If we need to create specific interactions to capture the different semantics in the case of kill/cancel/pause/suspend and drop/disconnect, what is the value of a generic 'destroy' message for all high-level services? Please note that I am not suggesting that WS-RF (and WS-Transfer for that matter) is not useful in certain cases. Indeed, in the systems management area it may make sense to use them. However, what it is being proposed in the OGSA working group (if I understand correctly) is that WS-RF be used as the foundation for all high-level services. > The debate with MS, as I understand it, seems to rather relate to the fact > that they are promoting a *different* set of conventions for doing similar > things, e.g., WS-Transfer instead of WS-ResourceProperties. > I won't pretend to know of Microsoft's intentions. However, a difference that I personally see between the WS-RF/WS-Notification and WS-Transfer/ /WS-Eventing/etc. camps is that the latter is much simpler and lightweight. Most importantly, the MS suite of specifications is not promoted as the uniform, underlying suite of common messaging behaviours for all high-level services as WS-RF seems to be. Instead it is some patterns that are available to be used where they are appropriate. Also, WS-Transfer is lightweight so it can be used in very-small-factor devices. So, it would be interesting to understand from the WSRF architects where they feel the WSRF approach is and is not appropriate. E.g. is it appropriate for interactions with multiple resources? Should it be used in the design of all high-level Grid services? What are the semantics of the 'destroy' messages? Best regards, -- Savas Parastatidis http://savas.parastatidis.name

3 2

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

02 Mar '05

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

1 0

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

01 Mar '05

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

1 0

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

01 Mar '05

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

2 1

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

01 Mar '05

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

3 2

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

01 Mar '05

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

1 0

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

01 Mar '05

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

1 0

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

01 Mar '05

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

2 1

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

01 Mar '05

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

2 2

Revised GGF13 session plan
by Hiro Kishimoto 01 Mar '05

01 Mar '05

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

1 1

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

01 Mar '05

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

1 0

Data: GGF13 sessions; no telcon this week; minutes from last week
by Dave Berry 01 Mar '05

01 Mar '05

Dear all, First, as you will see from https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/GGF13_session_plan /en/4, the following sessions at GGF13 involve the Data Design Team: 1. OGSA Status and Future, Monday March 14, 1-2.30pm Hiro will give an OGSA overview; Dave Snelling will introduce the notion of profiles; then I will present progress on the data architecture. 2. BOF: OGSA ByteIO WG, Monday March 14, 3-4.30pm This BOF is to discuss whether to create a new WG to write the spec for the ByteIO interface (a.k.a. BasicFiles interface). Alternatively an existing WG might take this on. 3. Basic Data Profile, Tuesday March 15, 11am-12.30pm This session is to discuss plans for an initial data profile, probably to contain ByteIO & DAIS, possibly also RNS (if this isn't in a naming profile) and GridFTP. I have an action to write an initial draft but I am behind with my actions and I'd be very happy if someone else took this on. If time permits we will also discuss elements of the data architecture document. 4. Data Service Architecture, Wednesday March 16, 9-10.30am This session is for discussion of data transfer. 5. Design team report session, Wednesday March 16, 1.30-3pm All design teams report back to the main OGSA WG. Second, there will be no telcon this week, as I have not yet updated the data architecture document following the London meeting. Third, I attach the minutes from last week's telcon, which you can also find on GridForge at https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/Minutes_23rd_Febru ary_2005/en/1 Dave Berry Research Manager, National e-Science Centre 15 South College St., Edinburgh Tel: +44 131 6514039

1 0

Proposed agenda for Feb. 28th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 28 Feb '05

28 Feb '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on February 28th Wednesday from 5pm to 7pm (CST). The dial-in number for Monday; Free: +1-866-639-4741 Toll: +1-574-935-6703 PIN: 8980700 Screen share service will be provided. URL: http://ogsa.glance.net Session key: 0228 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 preparation (20 min) Revised OGSA session plan https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/GGF13_session_plan/en… GGF13 schedule http://tinyurl.com/4cz98 GGF13 submitted draft http://www.gridforum.org/Meetings/GGF13/GGF13_Current_Drafts.htm 3) Refactoring EMS architecture discussion (if available) 4) Basic profile discussion (if available) Revised basic profile draft https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-basic-… le/en/3 New configuration of Issue tracker https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… 5) Wrap up (10 min) AOB Mar. 2 (10-11am CST) Data Design team Mar. 2 (5-7pm CST) Basic profile discussion, profile template discussion roadmap discussion, BES BoF preparation Mar. 7 (5-7pm CST) Basic profile discussion, basic security profile Mar. 9 (10-11am CST) Data Design team Mar. 9 (5-7pm CST) Roadmap discussion, GGF13 session preparation Mar. 13-16 GGF13 in Soeul See telecon schedule until GGF: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

DRAFT OGSA ByteIO charter
by Dave Berry 24 Feb '05

24 Feb '05

All, Attached is the DRAFT charter for the OGSA ByteIO WG, to be discussed at the BOF in Korea. I have appended draft answers to the GFSG's 7 questions. The key activity at this stage is to encourage people to attend the BOF and commit to doing the work. I will mail the co-chairs of the GFS, GSM, InfoD and DAIS WGs. Dave Berry Research Manager, National e-Science Centre 15 South College St., Edinburgh Tel: +44 131 6514039

1 0

OGSA Naming Profile 1.0 draft
by Hiro Kishimoto 23 Feb '05

23 Feb '05

Hi all, Please find the OGSA Naming Profile 1.0 draft for today's discussion by Tom, Andrew and Mark. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

OGSA Naming Profile 1.0 draft
by Hiro Kishimoto 23 Feb '05

23 Feb '05

Hi all, Please find the OGSA Naming Profile 1.0 draft for today's discussion by Tom, Andrew and Mark. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

OGSA Naming Profile 1.0 draft
by Hiro Kishimoto 23 Feb '05

23 Feb '05

Hi all, Please find the OGSA Naming Profile 1.0 draft for today's discussion by Tom, Andrew and Mark. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

OGSA Naming Profile 1.0 draft
by Hiro Kishimoto 23 Feb '05

23 Feb '05

Hi all, Please find the OGSA Naming Profile 1.0 draft for today's discussion by Tom, Andrew and Mark. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Slides for tonight
by Andrew Grimshaw 23 Feb '05

23 Feb '05

1 0

OGSA Naming Profile 1.0 draft
by Hiro Kishimoto 23 Feb '05

23 Feb '05

Hi all, Please find the OGSA Naming Profile 1.0 draft for today's discussion by Tom, Andrew and Mark. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

OGSA Naming Profile 1.0 draft
by Hiro Kishimoto 23 Feb '05

23 Feb '05

Hi all, Please find the OGSA Naming Profile 1.0 draft for today's discussion by Tom, Andrew and Mark. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

WS-Naming Document (for Telecon on 23 Feb. 2005)
by Hiro Kishimoto 23 Feb '05

23 Feb '05

Hi all, Attached is a WS-Naming document for today's discussion by Andrew Grimshaw and Mark Morgan. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Data: Proposed agenda for Wednesday 23rd February
by Dave Berry 22 Feb '05

22 Feb '05

Dear all, Here is a proposed agenda for the data telcon on Wednesday February 23rd, which will be at the usual time of 8.00am (PST) / 11.00am EST / 4.00pm (GMT) / 5.00 pm (CET). UK Dial In: 0845 245 0224 US Dial In: 1866 838 0046 International Dial In: +44 1452 542309 PIN Number: 632 065 1) Early discussion (5 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Minutes approval (attached) - https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/Minutes_26th_Janua ry_2005/en/1 Agenda bashing 2) Update on outstanding actions (5 min) - Simon to mail the list about different types of metadata: data resource vs. service. - Dave to mail Allen about the new proposed time slot [Not done - hence no change for this week] - Dave to double-check AG arrangements for the London meeting with Steven [Done] - Dave to mail Andrew about BOF for BasicFiles [Done - see agenda item] 3) BOF preparation (20 min) We have a BOF scheduled about the ByteIO interface. We need to prepare a draft charter and draft interface to circulate. See the attached draft proposal and comments from one of the data area chairs. This will be discussed on tonight's full OGSA WG call as well. 4) Report from F2F meetings (25 min) - London (subset of Data Team) - Chicago (full OGSA WG) 5) Wrap up (5 min) AOB DONM Dave Berry Research Manager, National e-Science Centre 15 South College St., Edinburgh Tel: +44 131 6514039

1 0

Proposed agenda for Feb. 23rd call
by Hiro Kishimoto 22 Feb '05

22 Feb '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on February 23rd Wednesday from 5pm to 7pm (CST). 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: 0223 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 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050207/en/1 F2F meeting minutes approval https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-20041208-… /1 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-20050214-… /1 Agenda bashing 2) GGF BoF preparation (60 min) OGSA-BES (Andrew) ByteIO (Dave Berry) WS-naming, RNS/Resolver (Andrew, Manuel) BoF session description, Draft Charter, 7 questions will be reviewed. 3) Naming profile discussion (20 min) Tom, Andrew, Mark will provide first draft before the call. 4) Basic security profile discussion (20 min) From the F2F minutes; > - Security profile was split off from basic profile. > - Security profile work: interest by other parties in GGF. > - Frank to lead this activity. 5) Wrap up (10 min) AOB Feb. 28 (5-7pm CST) Refactoring EM architecture, BES BoF preparation Mar. 2 (10-11am CST) Data Design team Mar. 2 (5-7pm CST) Basic profile discussion, profile template discussion roadmap discussion See telecon schedule until GGF: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Announcing the release of WSRF.NET 2.0
by Hiro Kishimoto 22 Feb '05

22 Feb '05

Hi, Glenn S. Wasson's email bounced. ---- Hiro Kishimoto Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:19:36 -0500 (EST) From: "Glenn S. Wasson" <wasson(a)Virginia.EDU> Subject: Announcing the release of WSRF.NET 2.0 Apologies to people who may seen this before, but I thought it might be of interest to this group. Glenn Hello, This message is to announce the release of WSRF.NET 2.0, the University of Virginia's implementation of the Web Services Resource Framework (WSRF) and Web Service Notification (WSN) family of specifications on the Microsoft .NET platform. WSRF.NET 2.0 features include: - Interoperability with GT 3.9.4 - Use of powerful XML database (Yukon, SQLExpress, or Xindice) - Includes prototype Grid-in-a-box services to create a remote execution grid - Support for GSI proxy certificates - New WSRF.NET forum WSRF.NET is the University of Virginia Grid Computing Group's toolkit for creating WSRF-compliant web services on the Microsoft .NET platform. WSRF.NET includes implementations of all port types in the WSRF and WS-Notification family of specifications. This includes: WS-ResourceProperties WS-ResourceLifetime WS-ServiceGroups WS-BaseFaults WS-BaseNotification WS-Topics WS-BrokeredNotification Other features of WSRF.NET include: - WS-Resources can be state or running processes - Support for multiple databases (e.g. MS SQLServer Yukon, MS SQLExpress, Xindice) - Attribute-based programming model - Full support for WSE 2.0 - Ability to program services in any .NET language - Integrated tools to perform port type aggregation - Light-weight client-side notification receiver - Many examples and tutorial materials The WSRF.NET bits, instructions, etc. can be downloaded from http://www.ws-rf.net. --- Glenn Wasson wasson(a)virginia.edu http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~gsw2c/

1 0

DRAFT OGSA-BES charter
by Hiro Kishimoto 22 Feb '05

22 Feb '05

Andrew's email bounced. I'm sorry I cannot re-send this until today. We will discuss BoF preparation including OGSA-BES at the call on this Wednesday. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto From: Andrew Grimshaw To: 'OGSA-WG' Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 4:46 AM Subject: DRAFT OGSA-BES charter All, Attached is the DRAFT OGSA-BES WG charter. IT IS A DRAFT!! It can be changed, and most likely will be changed between now and when the GFSG sees it. I have sent it in to Stacey . today was the deadline. Andrew

1 1

Proposed agenda for Feb. 21st call
by Hiro Kishimoto 21 Feb '05

21 Feb '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on February 21st Monday from 5pm to 7pm (CST). The dial-in number for Monday; Free: +1-866-639-4741 Toll: +1-574-935-6703 PIN: 8980700 Screen share service will be provided. URL: http://ogsa.glance.net Session key: 0221 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 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050207/en/1 F2F meeting minutes approval (minutes was sent to attendees) Agenda bashing 2) Basic Profile Discussion (60 min) Basic Profile document review Tom will provide new version before the call. 3) Profile template discussion (30 min) The latest version; https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa- profile-template/en/3 4) Wrap up (10 min) AOB Feb. 23 (10-11am CST) Data Design team Feb. 23 (5-7pm CST) GGF13 BoF preparation, naming profile, basic security profile Feb. 28 (5-7pm CST) Refactoring EM architecture, BES BoF preparation See telecon schedule until GGF: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule ---- Hiro Kishimoto

3 4

Resource Usage Service WG Meeting in Seoul
by Jon MacLaren 21 Feb '05

21 Feb '05

The Resource Usage Service working group has been developing a service interface for the recording (and retrieval) of information pertaining to the use of resources on the Grid. Information is passed back and forth using the Usage Record XML schema developed by the Usage Record Working Group. An implementation has also been created and tested at the University of Manchester. The service is likely to be deployed on the UK National Grid Service, and may also become part of future releases of the OMII software. At past meetings, the turn out has been fairly poor. We are keen to finish this work in some way, and want to push things forward at GGF13. The revised specification will be presented, and the recent implementation work discussed. Accountancy-related work is clearly not as glamourous as some activities, but it is a fundamental part of the Grid. I am writing to encourage you to turn up to our meeting in Seoul. The meeting is on Tuesday, March 15 from 3pm-4:30pm in the Sapphire Ballroom 1. Unfortunately, this clashes with the OGSA Design Team meeting (and with JSDL-WG), but I hope that at least some people from the OGSA-WG can attend. The up-to-date specification, currently based on WS-I, can be found in the RUS-WG mailing list archives at: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/rus-wg/2005/02/msg00001.html Thanks for your time, Jon MacLaren.

1 0

Telecon schedule until GGF3
by Hiro Kishimoto 19 Feb '05

19 Feb '05

Hi all, Thank you very much for attending the OGSA-WG F2F meeting in Chicago. We have had a very productive three days and produced many very good results. However, only three weeks left until GGF13. Let's keep the ball rolling toward Seoul. The attached is a telecon schedule we've agreed at the F2F meeting. Since next Monday is President's day, I will confirm if Tom and DaveS can make next Monday call or not. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Teleconference schedule until GGF13
by Hiro Kishimoto 16 Feb '05

16 Feb '05

Hi all, I would like to arrange teleconference schedule until GGF13. Attached is a first cut draft of this schedule. Let's discuss at the wrap up session tomorrow. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

rough sketch for design team discussion
by Hiro Kishimoto 16 Feb '05

16 Feb '05

Hi Fred, Frank, Takuya, Abdeslem, Attached is my rough sketchy proposal for design team architecture discussion tomorrow. Feel free to bash this :-) ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

What's in a webservice-resource name...?
by Frank Siebenlist 15 Feb '05

15 Feb '05

I would like to re-start a discussion about the naming of resources now that the resource reference properties have been ousted. (this ousting may be a blessing as it could simplify our naming as I will argue) The following is a snippet from the latest ws-addressing draft: ------<snippet>-------- 2.3 Endpoint Reference Comparison During the course of Web services interactions applications may receive multiple endpoint references describing the endpoints it needs to interact with. Different copies of an endpoint reference may also be received over time. The following rule clarifies the relation between the behaviors of the endpoints represented by two endpoint references with the same [address]; • The two endpoints accept the same sets of messages, and follow and require the same set of policies. That is, the XML Schema, WSDL, and policy and other metadata applicable to the two references are the same. However, the metadata embedded in each of the EPRs MAY differ, as the metadata carried by an EPR is not necessarily a complete statement of the metadata pertaining to the endpoint. Moreover, while embedded metadata is necessarily valid at the time the EPR is initially created it may become stale at a later point in time. To deal with conflicts between the embedded metadata of two EPRs, or between embedded metadata and metadata obtained from a different source, or to ascertain the current validity of embedded metadata, mechanisms that are outside of the scope of this specification, such as EPR life cycle information [see 2.4 Endpoint Reference Lifecycle] or retrieval of metadata from an authoritative source, SHOULD be used. The [address] properties of two endpoint references are compared according to Section 6 of [RFC 2396bis]. Therefore, a consuming application should assume that different XML Schemas, WSDL definitions and policies apply to endpoint references whose addresses differ. 2.4 Endpoint Reference Lifecycle This specification does not define a lifecycle model for endpoint references and does not address the question of time-to-live for endpoint references. Other specifications that build on or use WS-Addressing may define a lifecycle model for endpoint references created according to that specification. --------</snippet>------ It is almost as if lawyers wrote the statements above... or maybe it is an ill description of a Turing test that we can use to determine if two EPRs refer to the same webservice-resource... :-( My layman and naive interpretation is that if the EPR's addresses of two EPRs are the same, then they refer to the same resource. We essentially now have a "name" for our resource, which is the address' URI value, and if EPR-names are equal, then those names refer to the same webservice-resource. I remember that we challenged the "uniqueness" property of the address before. (e.g. the use of ip-addresses inside an EPR-address, like 127.0.0.1 or 10.*.*.* would not make the EPR-address globally unique addresses). However, in practice we must have a uniqueness property for the address within the "context of usage", otherwise we would be in real trouble. So, we could live within *our* 10.*.*.* domain happily and be guaranteed about the uniqueness of those ip-addresses. In other words, the real global uniqueness may not be a big deal in practice, and there are simple remedies like adding a uuid to the uri if needed. If we have in addition a resolver-EPR that we can associate with an EPR through embedding (or through other means), then we essentially have introduced a mechanism that we could use for an additional naming-level scheme. The Resolver-EPR is also an EPR, and will also have a name: its address' URI. The Resolver-EPR's name will also uniquely refer to the same webservice-resource as the EPR it is associated with. In other words, the Resolver-EPR's name can be used as an alternative name for the webservice-resource. We can use this to derive statements like: if two EPR have different names, but their associated resolver-EPRs have the same name, then those EPRs refer to the same webservice-resource. It would allow a client to find out that different EPRs that use different mechanisms, like soap/http and soap/reliable-messaging, describe alternative ways to talk to the same webservice-resource As the EPR's address can be "logical", we could use any naming scheme we want for a Resolver-EPR's address (as long as it's an URI), and could use human readable names, or application-domain specific names, or UUIDs. In other words, by standardizing the usage convention of a resolver/stable/resilient/renewable-EPR, we have introduced a flexible naming mechanism for our webservice-resources. It would also leave the use of different naming schemes open ... which could be considered a good thing. Regards, Frank. PS. I feel obliged to point out that there are serious trust issues associated with the binding of different names to the same webservice-resource...but that is orthogonal to the "naming" itself. -- Frank Siebenlist franks(a)mcs.anl.gov The Globus Alliance - Argonne National Laboratory

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1231] ENDPOINTREFERENCE resilientReference element definition
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 15 Feb '05

15 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1231 on 2005-02-14 12:43:21 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1231&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1231&group_id…) Summary: ENDPOINTREFERENCE resilientReference element definition Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1231 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 2 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 12:43:21 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 14:01:04 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: section 3.1.5. Need to define the schema for normative description of resilientReference. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Tom Maguire (2005-02-14 12:43:21) reliable endpoints are a basic necessity and that they are of such a key importance, that their placement in as low a level "profile" as possible is good. Ideally, we'd like to see it in WS-Addressing itself. The logical choice (and the one we all came up with individually) was to start placing information into the extensibility elements of the WS-Addressing Endpoint Reference. The specifics aren't important in general, but the idea was to have another EPR sitting inside one of these extensibility elements which could then be used (in the case of failure to communicate with a given endpoint) to re-bind to the endpoint. In othrwords, if I try to communicate with EPR alpha, and I fail for some reason to reach him/her, then I can look for this extensibility element inside of EPR alpha's EPR which will in turn be another EPR that I should be able to go to and ask for a "new" binding to EPR alpha. The parts that we disucussed which weren't quite so identical were: a) That this extensibility element could have 0..unbounded EPR's inside of it b) That the abstract name would be part of it. A) I think is fine either way as long as you can have 0 or 1. Andrew and I would tend to think that 0..unbounded gives you the most flexibility while not complicating a client's code unnecessarily. If the service provider doesn't want to use more then 1 EPR for re-binds, then he doesn't have to. 0 is important to "bottom" out the chain of binding agents. B) Is perhaps the more interesting thing to discuss. The naming group has come up with a number of requirements for abstract names that include: * Globally Unique in time and space * Easy (and cheap) to compare one abstract name against another for equality. * Persistent for the entire lifetime of the endpoint to which it refers. Based on this, Andrew and I want to make it a first class entity as much as possible. Making sure that the thing is easily comparable is very important. To be more concrete, ignoring XML syntax errors and my use of random and incorrect qnames, here is more or less what we were thinking an example EPR should look like.... <EPR> <Address>http://some-machine.org/some-path</Address> <ReferenceProperties>Whatever you want here</ReferenceProperties> <ExtensibilityPolicyWhatHaveYou> <OGSA-Bind-Info> <AbstractName>509733A3-7850-4cb9-AB54-F1B83078F1B4</AbstractName> <RebindAgent> // some other EPR </RebindAgent> </OGSA-Bind-Info> </ExtensibilityPolicyWhatHaveYou> </EPR> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

2 2

Proposed agenda for Jan. 24th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 15 Feb '05

15 Feb '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on January 24th Monday from 5pm to 7pm (CST). The dial-in number for Monday; Free: +1-866-639-4741 Toll: +1-574-935-6703 PIN: 8980700 Screen share service will be provided. URL: http://ogsa.glance.net Session key: 0124 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 - Andreas will send out before the call. Agenda bashing 2) Feb F2F meeting and GGF13 update (10 min) Hiro will send out revised F2F meeting agenda before the call. Andrew will send out F2F logistics if available. Identify which documents we will publish for GGF13 - Basic Profile 1.0 (first draft) - OGSA roadmap document (final draft?) - Any other? 3) OGSA roadmap document discussion (30 min) At GGF12, we explained our final draft plan for the OGSA roadmap document by the GGF13. Based on our recent progress, should we change the contents of the roadmap document? Profile should be in the roadmap? - roadmap document early draft: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-roadma… 2 - GGF12 roadmap doc status slide: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/GGF12-outreach.ppt/en… - Defining OGSA draft: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/defining-ogsa/en/1 4) OGSA v1 doc and its glossary final call (30 min) Andreas and Jem will post the revised 'really final' versions of these documents by Friday 1/21. The documents will be submitted to the GGF Editor one week after that: Friday 1/28. This is your last chance to comment on them before submission. 5) Wrap up (10 min) AOB Jan. 26 (10am-noon CDT) Data design team Jan. 26 (5pm-7pm CDT) Basic profile discussion and basic EM profile discussion Jan. 31 (5pm-7pm CDT) OGSA roadmap discussion Feb. 2 (10am-noon CDT) Data design team Feb. 2 (5pm-7pm CDT) <TBD> ---- Hiro Kishimoto

2 8

node-set serialization
by Hiro Kishimoto 15 Feb '05

15 Feb '05

Takuya's email bounced. ---- Hiro Kishimoto Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:24:04 -0600 (CST) To: ogsa-wg(a)gridforum.org Subject: node-set serialization From: Takuya Mori <moritaku(a)mwc.biglobe.ne.jp> Folks, Just for your information. The XML-Signature spec. defines its node-set serialization as follows: (it just referes to Canonical XML specification. <http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315>) ---------------------------- 4.3.3.2 The Reference Processing Model <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/#sec-ReferenceProcessingModel> The data-type of the result of URI dereferencing or subsequent Transforms is either an octet stream or an XPath node-set. The Transforms specified in this document are defined with respect to the input they require. The following is the default signature application behavior: * If the data object is an octet stream and the next transform requires a node-set, the signature application MUST attempt to parse the octets yielding the required node-set via [XML] well-formed processing. * If the data object is a node-set and the next transform requires octets, the signature application MUST attempt to convert the node-set to an octet stream using Canonical XML [XML-C14N]. ---------------------------- Hope it helps, Takuya

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1298] resilient EPR usage when endpoint is still reachable
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

A new artifact has been added: 1298 Submitted by: A Djaoui Submitted date: 2005-02-14 22:07:00 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1298&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1298&group_id…) Summary: resilient EPR usage when endpoint is still reachable Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1298 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-02-14 22:07:00 Submitted By: A Djaoui Submit Date: 2005-02-14 22:07:00 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: If a resource is moved to another endpoint and the initial endpoint is still reachable, then it is efficient for it to act as the primary resolver. When a client sends a stale EPR,the service should repond with the new EPR rather than re-directing the client to make another unecessary call to a resolver. The above is in addition to either the old endpoint or the new endpoint making a registration in one or more resolvers. The resolver is used when the endpoint is no longuer reachable. View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1243] WS Resource Metadata Descriptor
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1243 on 2005-02-14 13:28:06 Status has changed: - New: 'Pending' Old: 'Open' Assigned To has changed: - New: 'Tom Maguire' Old: '&lt;None&gt;' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1243&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1243&group_id…) Summary: WS Resource Metadata Descriptor Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1243 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Pending Priority: 3 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 13:28:06 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:01:52 Assigned To: Tom Maguire File(s): <None> Description: Section 5 (referenced spec) Should we be referencing WS-RMD? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Tom Maguire (2005-02-14 13:28:06) Premature spec. Lots of ways of handling this leave and extensibility item. AI: remove references to WSRMD ---------------------------------------------------------------------- View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1294] Agreement on specifications included and versions
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1294 on 2005-02-14 13:23:06 Status has changed: - New: 'Pending' Old: 'Open' Assigned To has changed: - New: 'Tom Maguire' Old: '&lt;None&gt;' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1294&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1294&group_id…) Summary: Agreement on specifications included and versions Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1294 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Pending Priority: 1 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 13:23:06 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-02-14 11:04:08 Assigned To: Tom Maguire File(s): <None> Description: Need agreement on specifications that are included in the basic profile and versions of the same. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Tom Maguire (2005-02-14 13:23:06) Keep versions at level they are at currently. Create timeline for doc recommendation and sync with WSRF, WSN, WSA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1249] Resource Property Definitions - Creation Time
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Michael Behrens changed 1249 on 2005-02-14 12:14:32 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1249&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1249&group_id…) Summary: Resource Property Definitions - Creation Time Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1249 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 3 Last Modified By: Michael Behrens Last Modified: 2005-02-14 12:14:32 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:19:54 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.1. Should the profile contain a resource property for the creation timestamp for the resource? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Michael Behrens (2005-02-14 12:14:32) I believe the profile should contain all the proporities needed for minimal interoperability. So, in general, all proporties needed to manage the life cycle of the resource should be available. Side question: Who defines the namespace? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1249] Resource Property Definitions - Creation Time
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1249 on 2005-02-14 11:23:48 Priority has changed: - New: '3' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1249&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1249&group_id…) Summary: Resource Property Definitions - Creation Time Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1249 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 3 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:23:48 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:19:54 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.1. Should the profile contain a resource property for the creation timestamp for the resource? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1248] Resource Property Definitions - Resource Type
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1248 on 2005-02-14 11:21:52 Priority has changed: - New: '3' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1248&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1248&group_id…) Summary: Resource Property Definitions - Resource Type Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1248 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 3 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:21:52 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:18:54 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.1. Should the profile include a resource property for the 'informal name'/resource type/functional characteristics? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1256] QueryResourceProperties - Description
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1256 on 2005-02-14 11:21:16 Priority has changed: - New: '3' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1256&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1256&group_id…) Summary: QueryResourceProperties - Description Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1256 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 3 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:21:16 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:29:41 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.3.1. Should have a normative DESCRIPTION requirement on QueryResourceProperties View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1255] GetMultipleResourceProperties - Description
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1255 on 2005-02-14 11:20:54 Priority has changed: - New: '3' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1255&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1255&group_id…) Summary: GetMultipleResourceProperties - Description Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1255 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 3 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:20:54 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:28:52 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.2.1. Should have a normative DESCRIPTION requirement for GetMultipleResourceProperties View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1254] QueryResourceProperties
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1254 on 2005-02-14 11:20:33 Priority has changed: - New: '3' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1254&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1254&group_id…) Summary: QueryResourceProperties Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1254 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 3 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:20:33 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:27:52 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.3. Should the profile mandate the support of the QRP message exchange? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1253] GetMultipleResourceProperties
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1253 on 2005-02-14 11:20:04 Priority has changed: - New: '2' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1253&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1253&group_id…) Summary: GetMultipleResourceProperties Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1253 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 2 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:20:04 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:25:58 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.2. Should the profile mandate/require the use of GetMultipleResourceProperties? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1252] Resource Property Definitions - Metadata
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1252 on 2005-02-14 11:19:45 Priority has changed: - New: '4' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1252&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1252&group_id…) Summary: Resource Property Definitions - Metadata Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1252 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 4 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:19:45 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:23:07 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.1.2. Detail metadata about each of the required resource properties. View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1258] ResourcePropertyChangeNotification
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1258 on 2005-02-14 11:19:22 Priority has changed: - New: '3' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1258&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1258&group_id…) Summary: ResourcePropertyChangeNotification Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1258 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 3 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:19:22 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:49:15 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.4. Should the profile mandate ResourcePropertyChangeNotifications? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1251] ResourcePropertyNames - Instance Semantics
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1251 on 2005-02-14 11:17:43 Priority has changed: - New: '3' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1251&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1251&group_id…) Summary: ResourcePropertyNames - Instance Semantics Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1251 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 3 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:17:43 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:22:05 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.1.1. Verify semantics of ResourcePropertyNames View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1250] ResourcePropertyNames - RPE Description
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1250 on 2005-02-14 11:17:15 Priority has changed: - New: '3' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1250&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1250&group_id…) Summary: ResourcePropertyNames - RPE Description Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1250 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 3 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:17:15 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:21:07 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.1.1. need normative schema and namespace View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1236] Addressing Fault Requirements
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1236 on 2005-02-14 11:15:57 Priority has changed: - New: '3' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1236&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1236&group_id…) Summary: Addressing Fault Requirements Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1236 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 3 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:15:57 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 14:07:44 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section needs to be detailed. View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1235] Addressing Message Information Header Requirements
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1235 on 2005-02-14 11:15:42 Priority has changed: - New: '3' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1235&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1235&group_id…) Summary: Addressing Message Information Header Requirements Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1235 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 3 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:15:42 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 14:07:38 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section needs to be detailed. View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1241] Need correct name of profile template
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1241 on 2005-02-14 11:15:17 Priority has changed: - New: '4' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1241&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1241&group_id…) Summary: Need correct name of profile template Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1241 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 4 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:15:17 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 11:57:42 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Abstract needs to be updated with profile template name View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1257] QueryResourceProperties XPath Serialization
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1257 on 2005-02-14 11:14:40 Priority has changed: - New: '3' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1257&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1257&group_id…) Summary: QueryResourceProperties XPath Serialization Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1257 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 3 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:14:40 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:30:52 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.3.1. XPath 1.0 does not have a standardized serialization. Should the profile say anything about it? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1245] Resource Property Definitions (how many)
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1245 on 2005-02-14 11:14:22 Priority has changed: - New: '4' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1245&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1245&group_id…) Summary: Resource Property Definitions (how many) Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1245 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 4 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:14:22 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:05:17 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.1 'several' should be a precise number View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1244] WS Resource Metadata Descriptor Extensibility
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1244 on 2005-02-14 11:13:59 Priority has changed: - New: '3' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1244&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1244&group_id…) Summary: WS Resource Metadata Descriptor Extensibility Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1244 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 3 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:13:59 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:03:19 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5 (referenced spec) Address extensibility points from WS-RMD (currently cut/copy/paste from WS-Resource Properties section 5 View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1242] Resource Properties Extensibility
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1242 on 2005-02-14 11:13:34 Priority has changed: - New: '3' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1242&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1242&group_id…) Summary: Resource Properties Extensibility Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1242 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 3 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:13:34 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:00:48 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5. Verify all extensibility items have been detailed View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1243] WS Resource Metadata Descriptor
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1243 on 2005-02-14 11:12:46 Priority has changed: - New: '3' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1243&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1243&group_id…) Summary: WS Resource Metadata Descriptor Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1243 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 3 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:12:46 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:01:52 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5 (referenced spec) Should we be referencing WS-RMD? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1294] Agreement on specifications included and versions
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1294 on 2005-02-14 11:06:52 Priority has changed: - New: '1' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1294&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1294&group_id…) Summary: Agreement on specifications included and versions Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1294 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 1 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:06:52 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-02-14 11:04:08 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Need agreement on specifications that are included in the basic profile and versions of the same. View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1294] Agreement on specifications included and versions
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

A new artifact has been added: 1294 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-02-14 11:04:08 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1294&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1294&group_id…) Summary: Agreement on specifications included and versions Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1294 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:04:08 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-02-14 11:04:08 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Need agreement on specifications that are included in the basic profile and versions of the same. View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1234] ENDPOINTREFERENCE Reference Properties/Reference Parameters
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1234 on 2005-02-14 11:01:57 Priority has changed: - New: '2' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1234&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1234&group_id…) Summary: ENDPOINTREFERENCE Reference Properties/Reference Parameters Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1234 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 2 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:01:57 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 14:06:21 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Should we drop section 3.1.6 Requirement that Refps not be created by the CONSUMER. Very difficult/ if not impossible to test... View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1233] ENDPOINTREFERENCE resilientReference depedency on RNS
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1233 on 2005-02-14 11:01:40 Priority has changed: - New: '2' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1233&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1233&group_id…) Summary: ENDPOINTREFERENCE resilientReference depedency on RNS Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1233 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 2 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:01:40 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 14:04:05 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: A CONSUMER of an endpoint reference that contains an ogsa:resilientReference extensibility element SHOULD send an ogsa-rns:Resolve message exchange to the ogsa:resilientReference in response to a wsrf-rap:ResourceUnknownFault. The definition of the Resolve MEP is immature/incorrect wrt OGSA requirements? How should we resolve this? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1232] ENDPOINTREFERENCE resilientReference required contents
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1232 on 2005-02-14 11:00:53 Priority has changed: - New: '2' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1232&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1232&group_id…) Summary: ENDPOINTREFERENCE resilientReference required contents Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1232 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 2 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:00:53 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 14:02:24 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: The resilient reference is added to the EPR (generally) by the issuer of the EPR. The EPR contains a ?andle as a discriminator for the resolve operation. The registration is out-of-band but could use the RNS registration mechanisms. Additionally, I would assume that the EPR of the enclosing EPR is embedded as a reference property of the resilientReference. (Although it could also be passed as a parameter) View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1231] ENDPOINTREFERENCE resilientReference element definition
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1231 on 2005-02-14 11:00:36 Priority has changed: - New: '2' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1231&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1231&group_id…) Summary: ENDPOINTREFERENCE resilientReference element definition Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1231 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 2 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:00:36 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 14:01:04 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: section 3.1.5. Need to define the schema for normative description of resilientReference. View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1230] ENDPOINTREFERENCE portType Requirement
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1230 on 2005-02-14 11:00:10 Priority has changed: - New: '3' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1230&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1230&group_id…) Summary: ENDPOINTREFERENCE portType Requirement Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1230 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 3 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 11:00:10 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 13:59:30 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Should we place this requirement? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1229] ENDPOINTREFERENCE ServiceName Requirement
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1229 on 2005-02-14 10:59:36 Priority has changed: - New: '3' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1229&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1229&group_id…) Summary: ENDPOINTREFERENCE ServiceName Requirement Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1229 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 3 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 10:59:36 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 13:58:51 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Should this requirement be placed? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1228] Number scheme for Requirements/Extensibility points
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1228 on 2005-02-14 10:58:25 Priority has changed: - New: '3' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1228&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1228&group_id…) Summary: Number scheme for Requirements/Extensibility points Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1228 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 3 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 10:58:25 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 13:54:33 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: What numbering scheme should we use for requirements and extensibility points? sequential? structured? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1227] Should we profile WS-Addressing
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1227 on 2005-02-14 10:57:42 Priority has changed: - New: '3' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1227&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1227&group_id…) Summary: Should we profile WS-Addressing Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1227 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 3 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 10:57:42 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 13:52:59 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: WS-Addressing submission is currently being profiled. Should we wait for the a w3c proposed recommendation? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1226] Conformance claim URI
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1226 on 2005-02-14 10:57:13 Priority has changed: - New: '4' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1226&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1226&group_id…) Summary: Conformance claim URI Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1226 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 4 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 10:57:13 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 13:51:33 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: section 2.4 the conformance claim URI needs to be defined View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1225] Relationship to WS-I Basic Profile
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1225 on 2005-02-14 10:55:25 Priority has changed: - New: '3' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1225&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1225&group_id…) Summary: Relationship to WS-I Basic Profile Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1225 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 3 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 10:55:25 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 13:50:25 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: In section 1.2 needs to be fleshed out. Needs discussion of the relationship to WS-I BP. View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1224] Decide on appropriate set of conformance targets
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1224 on 2005-02-14 10:55:03 Priority has changed: - New: '4' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1224&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1224&group_id…) Summary: Decide on appropriate set of conformance targets Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1224 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 4 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 10:55:03 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 13:35:43 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 2.2 lists a number of conformance targets. Many of which are not currently in use. The majority of conformance targets appear to be satisfied with the targets from WS-I BP 1.1 View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1223] Profile scope Appendix B (Extensibility Points from Referenced Specs )
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1223 on 2005-02-14 10:54:41 Priority has changed: - New: '5' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1223&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1223&group_id…) Summary: Profile scope Appendix B (Extensibility Points from Referenced Specs ) Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1223 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 5 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 10:54:41 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 13:34:03 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Include by reference the WS-I BP 1.1 Extensibility points. Add any others for additional reference specification from Appendix A View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1222] Profile scope Appendix A (Reference Specs)
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Tom Maguire changed 1222 on 2005-02-14 10:53:53 Priority has changed: - New: '5' Old: '-' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1222&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1222&group_id…) Summary: Profile scope Appendix A (Reference Specs) Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1222 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 5 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-02-14 10:53:53 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 13:30:58 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Include by reference all of the reference specs from WS-I BP 1.1. Are there any others that need to be included?? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

Appologies
by David Snelling 14 Feb '05

14 Feb '05

Folks, Sorry I won't be able to make the F2F. I a minor family crisis, not serious, just requiring my presence in the UK. I will try to dial in (at least for the Profile discussion). -- 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

RE: [ogsa-wg] Basic EMS BOF
by Rajic, Hrabri 13 Feb '05

13 Feb '05

I would add DRMAA-WG as a GGF group interested in the work. -Hrabri ________________________________ From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Foster Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 7:27 AM To: Hiro Kishimoto; 'OGSA-WG' Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] Basic EMS BOF Two comments from me: a) platform -> Platform b) I think it is too early to name co-chair candidates: there has been no discussion of this at all among stakeholders. Ian. At 06:07 PM 2/11/2005 +0900, Hiro Kishimoto wrote: Hi Andrew, I have two comments on your proposal. (1) Please list up widely used pioneering works in addition to GGF WGs. (2) Isn't it too early to name co-chair candidates in this proposal? Attached is revised version of charter BoF proposal. Please have a look. Minutes for Jan 18 call. > 3. What is basic functionality? > - (Ian) GT4 as an example that covers such simple functionality > - (Dave) Unicore/unigrids as another example > - Other efforts might offer input here, e.g., EGEE, etc > - Agreed that background work to review the various material is > needed first. Minutes for Feb. 7 call > ** Simple Job Submission BoF > - Need to also try to get Globus, SUN, and other parties involved. ---- Hiro Kishimoto > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Hiro > Kishimoto > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 11:37 AM > To: 'OGSA-WG' > Subject: [ogsa-wg] Basic EMS BOF > > Andrew's email bounced. > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > From: "Andrew Grimshaw" <grimshaw(a)cs.virginia.edu> > To: <ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org> > Subject: Basic EMS BOF > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:52:37 -0500 > > All, > > As discussed I am proposing a BOF to be held in Korea. Below is the one > paragraph description I will send to Stacey and Bill Nitzberg. I am also working > on a DRAFT charter, and will, of course, send that around as well. Please > comment on the below in the next 24 hours. The one paragraph proposal needs to > be in by Friday - the draft charter does not. The charter will spell it out in > more detail, and include proposed work product and timelines. A DRAFT of the > charter will be ready by the F2F. > > > > BOF proposal: > > Proposed Working Group Name: OGSA Basic Execution Services - OGSA-BES > > > > The OGSA Execution Management Services (EMS) design team has developed as part > of the OGSA V1 document a draft set of EMS services to support a wide range of > use-cases. The objective of the proposed OGSA-BES working group is to focus on a > minimal sub-set of the EMS services and develop a recommendations document > (i.e., specification) for them. The working group will work closely with the > OGSA WG, the JSDL working group, and others as necessary. > > > > Proposed working group chairs: > > Mark Morgan University of Virginia > > Steve Newhouse Southampton University _______________________________________________________________ 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/>

2 1

Basic EMS BOF
by Hiro Kishimoto 11 Feb '05

11 Feb '05

Andrew's email bounced. ---- Hiro Kishimoto From: "Andrew Grimshaw" <grimshaw(a)cs.virginia.edu> To: <ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org> Subject: Basic EMS BOF Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:52:37 -0500 All, As discussed I am proposing a BOF to be held in Korea. Below is the one paragraph description I will send to Stacey and Bill Nitzberg. I am also working on a DRAFT charter, and will, of course, send that around as well. Please comment on the below in the next 24 hours. The one paragraph proposal needs to be in by Friday - the draft charter does not. The charter will spell it out in more detail, and include proposed work product and timelines. A DRAFT of the charter will be ready by the F2F. BOF proposal: Proposed Working Group Name: OGSA Basic Execution Services - OGSA-BES The OGSA Execution Management Services (EMS) design team has developed as part of the OGSA V1 document a draft set of EMS services to support a wide range of use-cases. The objective of the proposed OGSA-BES working group is to focus on a minimal sub-set of the EMS services and develop a recommendations document (i.e., specification) for them. The working group will work closely with the OGSA WG, the JSDL working group, and others as necessary. Proposed working group chairs: Mark Morgan University of Virginia Steve Newhouse Southampton University

2 2

RE: [saga-rg] Re: OGSA EMC BoF on Simple job submission
by Hiro Kishimoto 10 Feb '05

10 Feb '05

Hi Andrew's email bounced. ---- Hiro Kishimoto To: "Rajic, Hrabri" <hrabri.rajic(a)intel.com> Cc: Bill Nitzberg <bill(a)computer.org>, Stephen Pickles <stephen.pickles(a)man.ac.uk>, Simple API for Grid Applications WG <saga-rg(a)ggf.org>, ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: RE: [saga-rg] Re: OGSA EMC BoF on Simple job submission On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Rajic, Hrabri wrote: > Let me put my industry hat and clarify the last point. > Even though Grid APIs are not the same as the MPI standard, just > imagine having different MPI standards for physicists, biochemists, CS > people, etc all approved by the same standards body. I do not know if > SAGA API could answer everyone's Grid API needs, but it is worth a > try. I agree entirely, and hope that the SAGA APIs will address the basic needs of people from all these groups. Our current strawman addresses the most pressing needs from our current set of use cases, but if we receive more use cases we may identify further operations which should be expressed by the API. Cheers, Tom

1 1

All guest rooms reservations have been made
by Hiro Kishimoto 09 Feb '05

09 Feb '05

Hi F2F meeting attendees, We've booked meeting room at Westin O'Hare for upcoming F2F meeting. The hotel also has booked guest room reservation at $125/night. The rooms are set up as Individual pays own, so you will just need to present a credit card upon check-in. Attached file has two tables showing who stays which night. Table 1 has newly made reservations based on your travel plan. If you want to change or cancel, please let me know. Since this is made by event office, reservation desk cannot change it. You can also talk to Convention Service Coordinator, Stacy Knoeck, directly. (847-698-1398, stacy.knoeck(a)westin.com) Table 2 has already made reservations. But they are now changed under our meetings and the room rate is $125. Again, if you want to change or cancel, please let me or Stacy know. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

NO call on Wednesday (Feb. 9)
by Hiro Kishimoto 09 Feb '05

09 Feb '05

Hi all, Since many people cannot make Wednesday's call due to GlobusWorld, we agreed not to have call on this Wednesday. See you next week in Chicago, ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA EMC BoF on Simple job submission
by Hiro Kishimoto 08 Feb '05

08 Feb '05

Andrew's email bounced. ---- Hiro Kishimoto From: "Andrew Grimshaw" <grimshaw(a)cs.virginia.edu> To: "'Rajic, Hrabri'" <hrabri.rajic(a)intel.com>, "'Tom Goodale'" <goodale(a)cct.lsu.edu> Cc: <saga-rg(a)ggf.org>, <ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org>, "'Bill Nitzberg'" <bill(a)computer.org>, "'Stephen Pickles'" <stephen.pickles(a)man.ac.uk> Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA EMC BoF on Simple job submission Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 13:25:55 -0500 I've been preparing a Basic EMS Services BOF request based on the EMS documents we have and on the results of last week's EMS F2F in London. The proposed WG does NOT collide in anyway with JSDL. It is not about "job submission" - it is about execution management at is simplest. It is highly complementary in the sense that JSDL is about description - and the proposed WG is about services to realize what JSDL specifies. I will be reporting on in during the call tonight - as called for in the agenda Hiro sent around. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Rajic, Hrabri Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 12:16 PM To: Tom Goodale Cc: saga-rg(a)ggf.org; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org; Bill Nitzberg; Stephen Pickles Subject: [ogsa-wg] OGSA EMC BoF on Simple job submission Tom, Are OGSA EMC people aware of the most recent SAGA-RG work? Would SAGA-RG people like to engage OGSA EMC and possibly co-sponsor a Simple job submission WG? This could be a nice opportunity to tie in the classic API and the WSDL approach. One thing to consider: Do we really need APIs in SRM, APME, and now in ARCH areas? Hrabri ---- from "[ogsa-wg] Proposed agenda for Feb. 7th call" mail by Hiro ------- 4) Simple job submission BoF preparation (30 min) From the minutes of Jan. 19 call. > - There is a plan to do an EM-related BoF. Stacey should know about > it but it is not the job of the OGSA-WG to tell her---the > proposed-chairs should do it. Preparation has not progressed to > that point yet so Andrew as Area Director will take care of it. > Action: Andrew as Area director to send an email to the directors of > the relevant Area (SRM: Bill, Stephen) to let them know of > the proposed BoF; also to Stacey to reserve a slot. > - Andrew mentioned that on the Data call there was a discussion for > a similar BoF for Data. -Hrabri

2 1

RE: [saga-rg] Re: OGSA EMC BoF on Simple job submission
by Rajic, Hrabri 08 Feb '05

08 Feb '05

> 4) Simple job submission BoF preparation (30 min) line does not reflect well what was meant as a work for the group. The choice of words was simply unfortunate. What OGSA-WG had in mind should have come as an input from discussions summarized in the attached document which mostly appears to not have direct relevance for SAGA-RG work. It this point I pass the role of the middleman to Chris who should be able to give more background for the SAGA-RG if necessary. Let me put my industry hat and clarify the last point. Even though Grid APIs are not the same as the MPI standard, just imagine having different MPI standards for physicists, biochemists, CS people, etc all approved by the same standards body. I do not know if SAGA API could answer everyone's Grid API needs, but it is worth a try. -Hrabri -----Original Message----- From: John Shalf [mailto:jshalf@lbl.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 11:37 AM To: Bill Nitzberg; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org; Rajic, Hrabri; Simple API for Grid Applications WG; Stephen Pickles; Tom Goodale Subject: Re: [saga-rg] Re: OGSA EMC BoF on Simple job submission On Feb 8, 2005, at 8:46 AM, Tom Goodale wrote: >> Would >> SAGA-RG people like to engage OGSA EMC and possibly co-sponsor a >> Simple >> job submission WG? This could be a nice opportunity to tie in the >> classic API and the WSDL approach. > > I'm not sure how relevent this would be, unless you are thinking of a > direct mapping of the SAGA API into WSDL, which may not make sense, > and would probably constrain the new group too much, however we should > certainly make sure we have some people at the BoF. Well, this should be cause for further discussion. The application programmer point of view on this will be "I don't really care what's underneath as long as it does what I ask of it when I call the right subroutine". So the WSDL mapping is more on the implementation side of things. That being said, having a working implementation is quite important. So it may be very interesting to pursue as a path to implementation (albeit not the only path). I think the concern on the SAGA side is that the WSDL interface will be adjusted to accommodate the semantics defined by the application use cases rather than the other way around. But this sounds pretty reasonable to me. >> One thing to consider: Do we really need APIs in SRM, APME, and now >> in >> ARCH areas? > > I'm not sure I understand this question ? We have APIs for the > functional areas we identified from our use cases. Just to echo this part of Tom's note, the API's are driven by the use cases. The use cases thus far didn't describe any good SRM applications (or at least SRM-like requirements were not described in enough detail for us to act upon). It could just be that the apps people are so bogged down in remote file access issues that they don't realize they need good Storage Resource Management systems yet. If we get some well described SRM, APME, or ARCH use cases, that will motivate development of APIs in those areas. (its not that those areas are not important) -john

1 0

Re: [saga-rg] Re: OGSA EMC BoF on Simple job submission
by Hiro Kishimoto 08 Feb '05

08 Feb '05

John's email bounced. ---- Hiro Kishimoto From: John Shalf <jshalf(a)lbl.gov> Subject: Re: [saga-rg] Re: OGSA EMC BoF on Simple job submission Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 09:37:14 -0800 To: Bill Nitzberg <bill(a)computer.org>, ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org, Hrabri Rajic <hrabri.rajic(a)intel.com>, Simple API for Grid Applications WG <saga-rg(a)ggf.org>, Stephen Pickles <stephen.pickles(a)man.ac.uk>, Tom Goodale <goodale(a)cct.lsu.edu> On Feb 8, 2005, at 8:46 AM, Tom Goodale wrote: >> Would >> SAGA-RG people like to engage OGSA EMC and possibly co-sponsor a >> Simple >> job submission WG? This could be a nice opportunity to tie in the >> classic API and the WSDL approach. > > I'm not sure how relevent this would be, unless you are thinking of a > direct mapping of the SAGA API into WSDL, which may not make sense, > and would probably constrain the new group too much, however we should > certainly make sure we have some people at the BoF. Well, this should be cause for further discussion. The application programmer point of view on this will be "I don't really care what's underneath as long as it does what I ask of it when I call the right subroutine". So the WSDL mapping is more on the implementation side of things. That being said, having a working implementation is quite important. So it may be very interesting to pursue as a path to implementation (albeit not the only path). I think the concern on the SAGA side is that the WSDL interface will be adjusted to accommodate the semantics defined by the application use cases rather than the other way around. But this sounds pretty reasonable to me. >> One thing to consider: Do we really need APIs in SRM, APME, and now >> in >> ARCH areas? > > I'm not sure I understand this question ? We have APIs for the > functional areas we identified from our use cases. Just to echo this part of Tom's note, the API's are driven by the use cases. The use cases thus far didn't describe any good SRM applications (or at least SRM-like requirements were not described in enough detail for us to act upon). It could just be that the apps people are so bogged down in remote file access issues that they don't realize they need good Storage Resource Management systems yet. If we get some well described SRM, APME, or ARCH use cases, that will motivate development of APIs in those areas. (its not that those areas are not important) -john

1 0

Re: OGSA EMC BoF on Simple job submission
by Hiro Kishimoto 08 Feb '05

08 Feb '05

Tom's email bounced. ---- Hiro Kishimoto Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:46:59 -0500 (EST) From: Tom Goodale <goodale(a)cct.lsu.edu> To: "Rajic, Hrabri" <hrabri.rajic(a)intel.com> Cc: saga-rg(a)ggf.org, ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org, Bill Nitzberg <bill(a)computer.org>, Stephen Pickles <stephen.pickles(a)man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: OGSA EMC BoF on Simple job submission Hi Hrabri, > Are OGSA EMC people aware of the most recent SAGA-RG work? Chris Smith from Platform, who's been putting together the job stuff for the Strawman is also involved in the OGSA EMS. > Would > SAGA-RG people like to engage OGSA EMC and possibly co-sponsor a > Simple job submission WG? This could be a nice opportunity to tie in > the classic API and the WSDL approach. I'm not sure how relevent this would be, unless you are thinking of a direct mapping of the SAGA API into WSDL, which may not make sense, and would probably constrain the new group too much, however we should certainly make sure we have some people at the BoF. > One thing to consider: Do we really need APIs in SRM, APME, and now > in ARCH areas? I'm not sure I understand this question ? We have APIs for the functional areas we identified from our use cases. Tom > Hrabri > > > ---- from "[ogsa-wg] Proposed agenda for Feb. 7th call" mail by Hiro > ------- > > 4) Simple job submission BoF preparation (30 min) > From the minutes of Jan. 19 call. >> - There is a plan to do an EM-related BoF. Stacey should know about >> it but it is not the job of the OGSA-WG to tell her---the >> proposed-chairs should do it. Preparation has not progressed to >> that point yet so Andrew as Area Director will take care of it. > >> Action: Andrew as Area director to send an email to the directors of >> the relevant Area (SRM: Bill, Stephen) to let them know of >> the proposed BoF; also to Stacey to reserve a slot. > >> - Andrew mentioned that on the Data call there was a discussion for >> a similar BoF for Data. > > -Hrabri > >

1 0

Teleconference minutes - February 7, 2005
by Andreas Savva 08 Feb '05

08 Feb '05

Minutes attached. Gridforge: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050207/en/1 or http://tinyurl.com/5fxfd/minutes-20050207/en/1 [Note that there is no call planned for Wednesday and next week is the face to face.] -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA teleconference - 7 February 2005 ====================================== * Participants Jay Unger (IBM) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Dave Snelling (Fujitsu) Hrabri Rajic (Intel) Mark Morgan (UVa) Tom Maguire (IBM) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Andrew Grimshaw (UVa) Dave Berry (NeSC) Minutes: Andreas Savva * Minutes for January 31 approved with no changes ** BoF preparation ** Simple Job Submission BoF - Driven by the need to define normatively a minimal subset of EM so that an EM pofile might go ahead. - Andrew is pulling things together - He has talked to Bill Nitzberg (area director) - He has told Stacey that a BoF application will be sent by Friday, the deadline for BoF scheduling requests. - Working on the draft application - Simple Job Submission may not be the right title. (It is more along the lines of 'sub-EM' or 'minimal EM.') - The proposed schedule is likely to be quite aggresive in order to meet various dependencies (and GGF expectations). For example, - First draft by June; and end of year as target delivery date - Clarified that there are 3 relevant documents: 1. BoF request (required to schedule a BoF) 2. Draft charter (good to have but not essential to schedule a BoF) 3. Starting point draft (as (2)) - For Friday's submission (1) and possibly part of (2) is good enough. - There is a minimal EM draft. (Based on the refactoring/renaming that Andrew, Mark, Chris did last year to address OGSA version 1.0 terminology problems.) - Starting with the EMS draft, ignore all services except container. Require a description of what to start and where (which container to use); and start it up. Return an EPR (or perhaps a Name). - Andrew and Mark worked with other UK participants in the mini-EMS F2F on this draft last week while in the UK. The result is a further simplification: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2005/02/msg00009.html - It looks like there is a lot of interest. Many names were mentioned as possible chairs for the group. (No decisions yet.) - Agreed that when sending out the announcement all relevant people should also be cc-ed. - Need to also try to get Globus, SUN, and other parties involved. ** ByteIO BoF - Similar approach to the one described above. BoF request by Friday, tell the relevant area directors and so on. - Dave (B) will do the BoF application. - Again the BoF proposal was discussed during last week's UK meeting and many names came up as likely chairs. (Nothing fixed yet.) * UK meeting updates [The minutes of these meetings are being prepared by Mark and will be distributed once the participants review them. Very brief notes here.] ** OGSA Data mini-F2F - Dave (B) and Andrew Grimshaw gave an update. - Things seem to be coming together for a general data architecture - Data transport as an issue left for discussion at GGF13 ** OGSA EMS mini-F2F - Two day meeting with a number of local participants - Worked on simplifying the EMS draft. Produced the draft sent to the list (see url above). Some UML included. (Note that people listed have not necessarily endorsed the content yet.) ** Monday meeting (e-Science) - Geoffrey Fox presentation on 2 core model - People will not converge on one model any time soon. - UK e-Science should be prepared to cover both WSRF & WS-I++ - Still not sure what the objections are to WSRF; WS-I++ ends up trying to do same things in slightly different way. - Proposal to discuss at a later time, perhaps during the F2F, the issue of OGSA dependence on WSRF as well as the opposition to WSRF. (Meanwhile Andrew is following up by talking with some people known to object to WSRF in order to get a better idea of the issues.) - There seem to be both political and technical issues. OGSA-WG should try to understand and work through the technical issues and try to reduce the division, at least within the grid community. - OGSA Profiles: 'conformance' and 'compliance' - Some issues were raised about what is in the BP - Andrew emphasized that the BP is not finished so people who have comments should (and are welcome to) contribute. * Update from WSRF/WSN F2F ** WSRF - Good progress. Many issues resolved. (Issue of which version of WS-Addressing to reference is still open). - A committee draft should be out soon (perhaps within the next couple of months). - There are still some questions with the Service Group definition. ** Base Notification/Eventing There are some places where Base Notification is more complex than WS-Eventing. It is possible to refactor Base Notification but there is no point doing so until the WS-Eventing co-authors respond to the offer sent to them. * F2F logistics - Phone line cost (for bridge) will be covered by Fujitsu. - Meeting room cost will be covered by Andrew. - Network access: - It is too expensive to get a network connection in the meeting room. - There is free wireless in lobby - And high speed network access in the rooms (not free) - Agreed that this is a reasonable compromise. - Projector will be provided by Takuya Mori - Deal is dependent on enough people staying at the hotel. Hiro got a $125/day room rate which is better than the online one. - Hiro has to finalize the deal before people can make room reservations at this rate. And the cutoff date is likely to be very soon. People attending should make sure to reserve soon after Hiro announces it on the list. [In case of questions email Hiro or Andreas.] * Next call: Agreed to cancel Wednesday's call since many people cannot make it due to GlobusWorld. Hiro will send F2F updates to the list.

1 0

draft ems basic services
by Andreas Savva 07 Feb '05

07 Feb '05

This is a draft covering ems basic services. This is intended to be input to the proposed EM BoF. (Sending on behalf of Mark Morgan.) -- Andreas Savva

1 0

Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA EMC BoF on Simple job submission
by Ian Foster 07 Feb '05

07 Feb '05

Hrabri: I would think that the job submission thing we need is almost completely trivial, as noted in earlier emails on ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org: it is basically a "create" call, with a JSDL string; the (also very simple) WSRF mechanisms then address the few other functions needed. The complexities all live in the JSDL, not the WSDL. On the API side, I'd strongly encourage the SAGA guys to look at the GT4 GRAM API, as it is makes it easy to do simple things, while also addressing many other things like staging, delegation, etc. See http://www-unix.globus.org/toolkit/docs/development/4.0-drafts/execution/ws…. Ian. At 09:15 AM 2/7/2005 -0800, Rajic, Hrabri wrote: >Tom, > >Are OGSA EMC people aware of the most recent SAGA-RG work? Would >SAGA-RG people like to engage OGSA EMC and possibly co-sponsor a Simple >job submission WG? This could be a nice opportunity to tie in the >classic API and the WSDL approach. > >One thing to consider: Do we really need APIs in SRM, APME, and now in >ARCH areas? > >Hrabri > > >---- from "[ogsa-wg] Proposed agenda for Feb. 7th call" mail by Hiro >------- > >4) Simple job submission BoF preparation (30 min) > From the minutes of Jan. 19 call. > > - There is a plan to do an EM-related BoF. Stacey should know about > > it but it is not the job of the OGSA-WG to tell her---the > > proposed-chairs should do it. Preparation has not progressed to > > that point yet so Andrew as Area Director will take care of it. > > > Action: Andrew as Area director to send an email to the directors of > > the relevant Area (SRM: Bill, Stephen) to let them know of > > the proposed BoF; also to Stacey to reserve a slot. > > > - Andrew mentioned that on the Data call there was a discussion for > > a similar BoF for Data. > > -Hrabri > _______________________________________________________________ Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 Globus Alliance, www.globus.org

1 0

OGSA EMC BoF on Simple job submission
by Rajic, Hrabri 07 Feb '05

07 Feb '05

Tom, Are OGSA EMC people aware of the most recent SAGA-RG work? Would SAGA-RG people like to engage OGSA EMC and possibly co-sponsor a Simple job submission WG? This could be a nice opportunity to tie in the classic API and the WSDL approach. One thing to consider: Do we really need APIs in SRM, APME, and now in ARCH areas? Hrabri ---- from "[ogsa-wg] Proposed agenda for Feb. 7th call" mail by Hiro ------- 4) Simple job submission BoF preparation (30 min) From the minutes of Jan. 19 call. > - There is a plan to do an EM-related BoF. Stacey should know about > it but it is not the job of the OGSA-WG to tell her---the > proposed-chairs should do it. Preparation has not progressed to > that point yet so Andrew as Area Director will take care of it. > Action: Andrew as Area director to send an email to the directors of > the relevant Area (SRM: Bill, Stephen) to let them know of > the proposed BoF; also to Stacey to reserve a slot. > - Andrew mentioned that on the Data call there was a discussion for > a similar BoF for Data. -Hrabri

1 0

Data: BOF proposal; also no telcon this week or next?
by Dave Berry 06 Feb '05

06 Feb '05

Dear all, There is a plan afoot to propose a BOF at GGF13 for a WG to fully specify the BasicFiles interface. The purpose of this interface is to provide simple read/write operations on streams of bytes (indeed, it might be renamed "ByteIO"). The catch is that BOF requests must be submitted by Feb 11th, so we have to sort out the details now. This will be discussed on the Monday (Feb 7th) main OGSA call. I believe that it is not an action that we can undertake purely as a design team. I attach Hiro's message with the agenda for tomorrow's call, for those few of you who aren't on the ogsa-wg list. I'm not planning to have a data telcon this week, unless people request it. Our informal F2F will be reported on tomorrow's main OGSA telcon. Next week there is an OGSA F2F in Chicago, and I will be on holiday in England, so I will not be organising a telcon then either. This will make the next data telcon be on February 23rd. Best wishes, Dave Berry Research Manager, National e-Science Centre 15 South College St., Edinburgh Tel: +44 131 6514039

1 0

Proposed agenda for Feb. 7th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 06 Feb '05

06 Feb '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on February 7th Monday from 5pm to 7pm (CST). The dial-in number for Monday; Free: +1-866-639-4741 Toll: +1-574-935-6703 PIN: 8980700 Screen share service will be provided. URL: http://ogsa.glance.net Session key: 0207 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 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050131/en/1 Agenda bashing 2) Feb F2F meeting update (20 min) Andrew and I are finalizing F2F logistics at Westin O'Hare. We will fill you in at the call. The latest meeting agenda. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/agenda_for_2005_Feb_m… g/en/4 3) UK informal OGSA data and EMS meeting debriefing (30 min) Andrew, Steven, Dave and others had very good meetings in London. They will give us outcomes of the discussions. 4) Simple job submission BoF preparation (30 min) From the minutes of Jan. 19 call. > - There is a plan to do an EM-related BoF. Stacey should know about > it but it is not the job of the OGSA-WG to tell her---the > proposed-chairs should do it. Preparation has not progressed to > that point yet so Andrew as Area Director will take care of it. > Action: Andrew as Area director to send an email to the directors of > the relevant Area (SRM: Bill, Stephen) to let them know of > the proposed BoF; also to Stacey to reserve a slot. > - Andrew mentioned that on the Data call there was a discussion for > a similar BoF for Data. 5) Wrap up (10 min) AOB Feb. 9 (5pm-7pm CDT) <TBD> Feb. 14-16 F2F meeting in Chicago ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 1

Fwd: [members] OASIS TC Call for Participation: OASIS SOA-RM TC
by Ian Foster 06 Feb '05

06 Feb '05

Does anyone know anything about this? I note that Fujitsu is a founding member. Ian. >To: members(a)lists.oasis-open.org, tc-announce(a)lists.oasis-open.org, > xml-dev(a)lists.xml.org, soa-rm(a)lists.oasis-open.org >From: James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark(a)oasis-open.org> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed >Subject: [members] OASIS TC Call for Participation: OASIS SOA-RM TC >X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at mailgw.mcs.anl.gov > > A new OASIS technical committee is being formed. The OASIS Service > Oriented Architecture Reference Model (SOA-RM) TC has been proposed by > the members of OASIS listed below. > > The proposal (below) meets the requirements of the OASIS TC Process > [1]. The TC name, statement of purpose, scope, list of deliverables, > audience, and language specified in the proposal will constitute the TC's > official charter. Submissions of technology for consideration by the TC, > and the beginning of technical discussions, may occur no sooner than the > TC's first meeting. > > As specified by the OASIS TC Process, the eligibility requirements > for becoming a participant in the TC at the first meeting are that you > must (a) be an employee of an OASIS member organization or an > individual member of OASIS; (b) notify the TC chair of your intent to > participate at least 15 days prior to the first meeting; and (c) attend > the first meeting of the TC, at the time and date fixed below. OASIS > members may register and add themeslves to the roster (as a prospective > member or observer) using the OASIS web-based interface, using the "Join > this TC" button on the TC's public page at [2]. Doing so will inform > the TC chair, fulfilling requirement (b) above, and subscribe you to the > TC's e-mail list, where further organizational details will be > posted. OASIS members also may join the TC after the first meeting. > > Standards always are made better by broad participation. Non-OASIS > members who wish to participate may contact us about joining [3] and > review the web-based membership information at [4]. Our rules and > structure are designed to promote inclusiveness, so we look forward to > assisting parties interested in joining the community of implementers, > technologists, academic and end-users working on OASIS > standards. Non-members also may take advantage of the public resources > maintained for each TC: a mail list archive, document repository and > public comments facility, all available on the TC's home page at > [2]. Archives of the TC's mail list and public comment lists, as with > all OASIS TCs, will be visible at [5]. > > Further information related to the topic of this TC may be found on > the Cover Pages under the title "Service Oriented Architectures" at > http://xml.coverpages.org/soa.html. > > Please feel free to forward this announcement to any other applicable > lists. OASIS is an open standards organization and we encourage your > feedback. JBC > >~ James Bryce Clark >~ Director, Standards Development, OASIS >~ jamie.clark(a)oasis-open.org > >[1] http://oasis-open.org/committees/process.shtml >[2] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/soa-rm >[3] join(a)oasis-open.org >[4] http://www.oasis-open.org/join/ >[5] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ > >==== >Charter data: > >Name of the TC > >OASIS Service Oriented Architecture Reference Model Technical Committee >(abbreviated as OASIS SOA-RM TC). > >Statement of Purpose > >Problem to be solved: "Service Oriented Architecture" (SOA) as a term is >being used in an increasing number of contexts and specific technology >implementations, sometimes with differing - or worse, conflicting - >understandings of implicit terminology and components. The proposal to >establish a Reference Model is intended to encourage the continued growth >of specific and different SOA implementations whilst preserving a common >layer that can be shared and understood between those or future >implementations. > >Purpose: The SOA-RM TC will deliver a Service Oriented Architecture >Reference Model (SOA-RM). Once the SOA-RM has been delivered, the TC may >consider appropriate follow-up, including the creation of sub-committees, >promotional material, liaisons or other promulgation of the TC's work, in >order to promote the use of the SOA Reference Model in specific SOA >implementations, in particular for vertical industries. > >Definitions used in this section: > Reference Model - A reference model is an abstract framework for > understanding significant relationships among the entities of some > environment, and for the development of consistent standards or > specifications supporting that environment. A reference model is based on > a small number of unifying concepts and may be used as a basis for > education and explaining standards to a non-specialist. [1] A reference > model is not directly tied to any standards, technologies or other > concrete implementation details, but it does seek to provide a common > semantics that can be used unambiguously across and between different > implementations. > Architecture - Software architecture for a system is the structure or > structures of the system, which consist of elements and their externally > visible properties, and the relationships among them.[2] > >[1] ssdoo.gsfc.nasa.gov/nost/isoas/us04/defn.html >[2] "Documenting Software Architectures", Addison Wesley, Clements et al, >pp xxv, ISBN 0201703726 > >Scope of the TC's work > >The TC will: > -- deliver a Service Oriented Architecture Reference Model (SOA-RM) > and, if it elects, ancillary materials as described under "purpose" above. > -- allow the commission of sub-committees to create specialized SOA > models for vertical industries or technology families. > -- propose usage and implementation guidelines for creating > specializations of the reference model, whether as a formal methodology > or as best practice guidelines. > >In no event shall this Technical Committee finalize or approve any >technical specification if it believes that the use, distribution, or >implementation of such specification would necessarily require the >unauthorized infringement of any third party rights known to the Technical >Committee, and such third party has not agreed to provide necessary >license rights on perpetual, royalty-free, non-discriminatory terms. > >Deliverables > >1. Service Oriented Architecture Reference Model: completion date in >twelve months from formation of this TC. >2. Specializations of the SOA Reference Model, possibly including >reference architectures, for vertical industries, technology families or >other special interest groups: optional. > >Anticipated audience > >Anyone involved in the design, documentation or implementation of Service >Oriented Architectures (SOA's) or components thereof, regardless of the >standards body under which the work is sanctioned. > >Language > >The TC will conduct its business in English. The TC may elect to form >subcommittees that produce localized documentation of the TC's work in >additional languages. > >The following is additional information relevant to the launch of the TC. > >Related work > >Since there are no other reference models currently being worked on in >OASIS, there are no similar deliverables at the time of this submission. >However, a wide variety of specifications, both within and outside of >OASIS, may be of relevance as instances of or components of a specific >service-oriented function or architecture. The objective of the Reference >Model is precisely to provide standardized integration points between >these. The work product of over half of the current OASIS TCs (each of >which may offer a service, service description, advertising mechanism, >service data model or service contract), as well as a large number of >standards from other organizations, may serve as relevant data to inform >the reference model. However, the SOA RM will not seek to choose among >specifications nor populate functions. Similarly, some of the existing >standards-based efforts that claim to describe an architecture or stack of >service-oriented specifications (including the OASIS FWSI and ebSOA TCs, >the W3C Web Services Architecture Technical Note, and other work) may >serve as instances or examples that are relevant data for the creation of >the reference model, but are not comparable, because the reference model >will address a higher level of abstraction. > >Anticipated contributions > >1. SOA Reference Model Q & A , written by conveners of this TC. >2. Elements of an SOA Reference Model, written by conveners of this TC. > >First meeting > >The first meeting of the TC will be held on March 22, 2005, at 8:00 am >Pacific (US) time, by conference call sponsored by Adobe Systems, Inc. > >On-going meeting plans. > >Meeting schedule will be monthly conference calls as well as quarterly >face-to-face meetings, pending approval and adoption by the TC. Adobe >Systems has agreed to serve as a meeting sponsor > >Proposers of the TC > >Kathryn Breininger, kathryn.r.breininger(a)boeing.com, The Boeing Company >Peter Brown, peter(a)justbrown.net, individual member >Ed Chase, chase(a)adobe.com, Adobe Systems, Inc. >Joseph Chiusano, chiusano_joseph(a)bah.com, Booz Allen Hamilton >John Hardin, john(a)sanghainteractive.com, individual member >C. Matthew Mackenzie, mattm(a)adobe.com, Adobe Systems >Hamid Ben Malek, HMalek(a)us.fujitsu.com, Fujitsu >Christopher Mather, mather_christopher(a)bah.com, Booz Allen Hamilton >Tim Mathews, tmathews(a)lmi.org, LMI >Katsuhiro Morita, Km040481(a)moj.go.jp, ECOM >Duane Nickull, dnickull(a)adobe.com, Adobe Systems >Michael E. Ruiz, michael.ruiz(a)baesystems.com, BAE Systems NA, Inc. >Sally St. Amand, sallystamand(a)yahoo.com, individual member >Ron Schuldt, ron.l.schuldt(a)lmco.com, Lockheed Martin, Inc. >Rajal Shah, rajalsha(a)cisco.com, Cisco Systems, Inc. > >TC Convener > >Duane Nickull, dnickull(a)adobe.com > >Proposed TC chair or co-chairs > >Duane Nickull, dnickull(a)adobe.com > >==== > > >_______________________________________________________________ >This email list is used solely by OASIS for official consortium >communications. Opt-out requests may be sent to >member_services(a)oasis-open.org, however, all members are strongly >encouraged to maintain a subscription to this list. > _______________________________________________________________ Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 Globus Alliance, www.globus.org

2 1

Newer version of Basic Profile doc?
by Srinivasan, Latha 04 Feb '05

04 Feb '05

Has a newer version of the Basic Profile doc. been posted to gridforge? I looked in the Working Drafts folder and I still can only see the version that Hiro uploaded on Jan 18. If there is a newer version, could provide a link? Thanks, Latha

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1262] Should set resource property be included in BPv1?
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 04 Feb '05

04 Feb '05

A new artifact has been added: 1262 Submitted by: Andreas Savva Submitted date: 2005-02-04 15:16:16 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1262&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1262&group_id…) Summary: Should set resource property be included in BPv1? Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1262 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 4 Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-02-04 15:16:16 Submitted By: Andreas Savva Submit Date: 2005-02-04 15:16:16 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: [From Jan. 26 minutes] There is an issue with whether a generic "set propery" should be in the basic profile. Many 'stakeholders' have no requirement to change properties, or think that if such functionality is needed then specific operations for each item should be defined. (Also there is an argument that such an operation is not in line with SOA, and so on.) [Fred followed up on whether it is required or not be WSDM.] > Should make WSDM aware about the 'set resource property' issue. > (Provided wants WSDM to be 'aligned' with the OGSA profile.) > Fred is the OGSA-WSDM liaison. I raised the issue at the WSDM teleconference earlier today. First of all, from the MUWS part 2 spec: "Specifically, the interface MUST include the GetResourceProperty operation defined by [WS-RP] and MAY include the GetMultipleProperties, SetResourceProperties and QueryResourceProperties operations." So, SetResourceProperties is not mandatory in WSDM. In the configuration capability, it says that: "WS- ResourceProperties SetResourceProperty operation MAY be used to change a configuration value." Again, not mandatory. So, whether SetResourceProperties is a MUST or not will depend on the specific mapping from MUWS to a given domain. And in the teleconference I was given a very good example, which is CIM. It is quite natural to do setup on resources (configure, control, etc.) using SetResourceProperties (that would be functionality similar to SetProperty, ModifyInstance, etc. in WBEM). This single operaton should be enough. Conversely, if we don't use it, we will need a *zillion* different operations (one for each and every property in every class of the model?), which will be a pain. So, no problems for now, but we (OGSA and WSDM) will definitely need to keep in sync. And I'd say that their input above is valuable. Regards, Fred Maciel. P.S. - For the WBEM operations, see: http://www.wbemsolutions.com/tutorials/CIM/wbem-operations.html (http://www.wbemsolutions.com/tutorials/CIM/wbem-operations.html) View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

Teleconference minutes - 31 January 2005
by Andreas Savva 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

Minutes attached. Gridforge: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050131/en/1 -- Andreas Savva OGSA Teleconference - 31 January 2005 ===================================== * Participants Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Apologies: Jem Treadwell, Dave Snelling Minutes: Andreas Savva * F2F update - No update from Andrew about the hotel. - Hiro to follow up. * Basic Profile - Fred followed up with WSDM on 'set resource property' operation - Andreas to put the issue in the basic profile tracker. * CMM-WG update - The CMM document is done and Fred will be submitting it to the GGF Editor. - The CMM-WG has closed having succesfully completed its work. * Next call No call Wednesday. Hiro will post an updated schedule on the list.

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1258] ResourcePropertyChangeNotification
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1258 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-31 12:49:15 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1258&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1258&group_id…) Summary: ResourcePropertyChangeNotification Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1258 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-31 12:49:15 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:49:15 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.4. Should the profile mandate ResourcePropertyChangeNotifications? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1257] QueryResourceProperties XPath Serialization
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1257 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-31 12:30:52 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1257&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1257&group_id…) Summary: QueryResourceProperties XPath Serialization Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1257 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-31 12:30:52 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:30:52 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.3.1. XPath 1.0 does not have a standardized serialization. Should the profile say anything about it? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1256] QueryResourceProperties - Description
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1256 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-31 12:29:41 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1256&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1256&group_id…) Summary: QueryResourceProperties - Description Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1256 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-31 12:29:41 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:29:41 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.3.1. Should have a normative DESCRIPTION requirement on QueryResourceProperties View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1255] GetMultipleResourceProperties - Description
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1255 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-31 12:28:52 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1255&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1255&group_id…) Summary: GetMultipleResourceProperties - Description Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1255 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-31 12:28:52 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:28:52 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.2.1. Should have a normative DESCRIPTION requirement for GetMultipleResourceProperties View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1254] QueryResourceProperties
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1254 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-31 12:27:52 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1254&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1254&group_id…) Summary: QueryResourceProperties Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1254 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-31 12:27:52 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:27:52 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.3. Should the profile mandate the support of the QRP message exchange? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1253] GetMultipleResourceProperties
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1253 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-31 12:25:58 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1253&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1253&group_id…) Summary: GetMultipleResourceProperties Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1253 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-31 12:25:58 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:25:58 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.2. Should the profile mandate/require the use of GetMultipleResourceProperties? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1252] Resource Property Definitions - Metadata
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1252 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-31 12:23:07 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1252&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1252&group_id…) Summary: Resource Property Definitions - Metadata Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1252 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-31 12:23:07 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:23:07 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.1.2. Detail metadata about each of the required resource properties. View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1251] ResourcePropertyNames - Instance Semantics
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1251 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-31 12:22:05 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1251&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1251&group_id…) Summary: ResourcePropertyNames - Instance Semantics Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1251 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-31 12:22:05 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:22:05 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.1.1. Verify semantics of ResourcePropertyNames View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1250] ResourcePropertyNames - RPE Description
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1250 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-31 12:21:07 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1250&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1250&group_id…) Summary: ResourcePropertyNames - RPE Description Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1250 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-31 12:21:07 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:21:07 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.1.1. need normative schema and namespace View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1249] Resource Property Definitions - Creation Time
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1249 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-31 12:19:54 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1249&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1249&group_id…) Summary: Resource Property Definitions - Creation Time Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1249 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-31 12:19:54 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:19:54 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.1. Should the profile contain a resource property for the creation timestamp for the resource? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1248] Resource Property Definitions - Resource Type
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1248 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-31 12:18:54 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1248&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1248&group_id…) Summary: Resource Property Definitions - Resource Type Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1248 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-31 12:18:54 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:18:54 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.1. Should the profile include a resource property for the 'informal name'/resource type/functional characteristics? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1247] Resource Property Definitions - Version
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1247 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-31 12:09:43 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1247&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1247&group_id…) Summary: Resource Property Definitions - Version Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1247 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-31 12:09:43 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:09:43 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.1 Should the profile include a version? If so representing what? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1246] Resource Property Definitions - Version
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1246 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-31 12:08:27 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1246&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1246&group_id…) Summary: Resource Property Definitions - Version Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1246 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-31 12:08:27 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:08:27 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.1 Should the profile include a version? If so representing what? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1245] Resource Property Definitions (how many)
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1245 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-31 12:05:17 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1245&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1245&group_id…) Summary: Resource Property Definitions (how many) Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1245 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-31 12:05:17 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:05:17 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5.1 'several' should be a precise number View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1244] WS Resource Metadata Descriptor Extensibility
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1244 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-31 12:03:19 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1244&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1244&group_id…) Summary: WS Resource Metadata Descriptor Extensibility Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1244 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-31 12:03:19 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:03:19 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5 (referenced spec) Address extensibility points from WS-RMD (currently cut/copy/paste from WS-Resource Properties section 5 View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1243] WS Resource Metadata Descriptor
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1243 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-31 12:01:52 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1243&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1243&group_id…) Summary: WS Resource Metadata Descriptor Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1243 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-31 12:01:52 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:01:52 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5 (referenced spec) Should we be referencing WS-RMD? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1242] Resource Properties Extensibility
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1242 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-31 12:00:48 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1242&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1242&group_id…) Summary: Resource Properties Extensibility Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1242 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-31 12:00:48 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 12:00:48 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 5. Verify all extensibility items have been detailed View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1236] Addressing Fault Requirements
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

Tom Maguire changed 1236 on 2005-01-31 11:59:04 Summary has changed: - New: 'Addressing Fault Requirements' Old: 'Addressing Message Information Header Requirements' Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1236&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1236&group_id…) Summary: Addressing Fault Requirements Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1236 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-01-31 11:59:04 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 14:07:44 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section needs to be detailed. View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1241] Need correct name of profile template
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1241 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-31 11:57:42 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1241&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1241&group_id…) Summary: Need correct name of profile template Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1241 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-31 11:57:42 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-31 11:57:42 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Abstract needs to be updated with profile template name View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

OGSA version 1.0 and Glossary re-submitted to GGF Editor
by Andreas Savva 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

As the subject says the revised versions were re-submitted late last week. OGSA v1: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-spec/e… Glossary: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-glossa… Public comments spreadsheet: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/ogsa-v1-public-commen… Thanks to all who submitted comments, participated in the reviews, and made the necessary revisions. -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd

1 0

Proposed agenda for Jan. 31st call
by Hiro Kishimoto 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on January 31st Monday from 5pm to 6pm (CST). There are a number of events (WSRF, UK meeting) so attendance may be low. The meeting should be short. Also, we will NOT have Wednesday general call (Feb. 2nd) this week. The dial-in number for Monday; Free: +1-866-639-4741 Toll: +1-574-935-6703 PIN: 8980700 Screen share service will be provided. URL: http://ogsa.glance.net Session key: 0131 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 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050126/en/1 Agenda bashing 2) Feb F2F meeting update (20 min) Andrew will send out F2F logistics if available. The latest meeting agenda. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/agenda_for_2005_Feb_m… g/en/4 3) Wrap up (10 min) AOB Feb. 2 (10am-noon CDT) Data design team Feb. 7 (5pm-7pm CDT) <TBD> ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Tracker for Basic Profile document
by Andreas Savva 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

As you have probably noticed already from Tom's recent tracker submissions there is a new tracker for issues relating to the Basic Profile document. If there are any issues you'd like to raise wrt the Basic Profile document you may submit them directly to the tracker (see link below) or you may mail the list (or me). The issues raised will be used as discussion points at the next F2F. Please include at least the following information if you are sending issues by mail to the list so that it is easier to pick them up and put them in the tracker. > 1. [Issue] "Summary" in subject > 2. Reference the relevant section of profile > 3. Provide a precice and concide description of issue > 4. Optionally proposed resolutions and which is preferable. > The tracker is set to send email to the list on new submissions. Starting today, and for a limited time only (until the February F2F), we will also set this tracker to send email on *all changes.* The idea is to make it easier to see what topics are being discussed. If it gets too noisy I will change the settings back to normal. The tracker is https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… The Basic Profile draft is https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-basic-… -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd

1 0

Teleconference minutes - January 26, 2005
by Andreas Savva 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

Minutes attached. Gridforge: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050126/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd.

2 1

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1236] Addressing Message Information Header Requirements
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 28 Jan '05

28 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1236 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-28 14:07:44 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1236&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1236&group_id…) Summary: Addressing Message Information Header Requirements Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1236 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-28 14:07:44 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 14:07:44 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section needs to be detailed. View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1235] Addressing Message Information Header Requirements
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 28 Jan '05

28 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1235 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-28 14:07:38 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1235&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1235&group_id…) Summary: Addressing Message Information Header Requirements Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1235 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-28 14:07:38 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 14:07:38 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section needs to be detailed. View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1234] ENDPOINTREFERENCE Reference Properties/Reference Parameters
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 28 Jan '05

28 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1234 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-28 14:06:21 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1234&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1234&group_id…) Summary: ENDPOINTREFERENCE Reference Properties/Reference Parameters Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1234 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-28 14:06:21 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 14:06:21 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Should we drop section 3.1.6 Requirement that Refps not be created by the CONSUMER. Very difficult/ if not impossible to test... View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1233] ENDPOINTREFERENCE resilientReference depedency on RNS
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 28 Jan '05

28 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1233 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-28 14:04:05 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1233&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1233&group_id…) Summary: ENDPOINTREFERENCE resilientReference depedency on RNS Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1233 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-28 14:04:05 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 14:04:05 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: A CONSUMER of an endpoint reference that contains an ogsa:resilientReference extensibility element SHOULD send an ogsa-rns:Resolve message exchange to the ogsa:resilientReference in response to a wsrf-rap:ResourceUnknownFault. The definition of the Resolve MEP is immature/incorrect wrt OGSA requirements? How should we resolve this? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1232] ENDPOINTREFERENCE resilientReference required contents
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 28 Jan '05

28 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1232 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-28 14:02:24 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1232&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1232&group_id…) Summary: ENDPOINTREFERENCE resilientReference required contents Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1232 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-28 14:02:24 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 14:02:24 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: The resilient reference is added to the EPR (generally) by the issuer of the EPR. The EPR contains a ?andle as a discriminator for the resolve operation. The registration is out-of-band but could use the RNS registration mechanisms. Additionally, I would assume that the EPR of the enclosing EPR is embedded as a reference property of the resilientReference. (Although it could also be passed as a parameter) View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1231] ENDPOINTREFERENCE resilientReference element definition
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 28 Jan '05

28 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1231 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-28 14:01:04 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1231&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1231&group_id…) Summary: ENDPOINTREFERENCE resilientReference element definition Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1231 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-28 14:01:04 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 14:01:04 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: section 3.1.5. Need to define the schema for normative description of resilientReference. View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1230] ENDPOINTREFERENCE portType Requirement
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 28 Jan '05

28 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1230 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-28 13:59:30 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1230&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1230&group_id…) Summary: ENDPOINTREFERENCE portType Requirement Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1230 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-28 13:59:30 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 13:59:30 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Should we place this requirement? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1229] ENDPOINTREFERENCE ServiceName Requirement
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 28 Jan '05

28 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1229 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-28 13:58:51 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1229&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1229&group_id…) Summary: ENDPOINTREFERENCE ServiceName Requirement Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1229 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-28 13:58:51 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 13:58:51 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Should this requirement be placed? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1228] Number scheme for Requirements/Extensibility points
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 28 Jan '05

28 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1228 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-28 13:54:33 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1228&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1228&group_id…) Summary: Number scheme for Requirements/Extensibility points Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1228 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-28 13:54:33 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 13:54:33 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: What numbering scheme should we use for requirements and extensibility points? sequential? structured? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1227] Should we profile WS-Addressing
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 28 Jan '05

28 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1227 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-28 13:52:59 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1227&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1227&group_id…) Summary: Should we profile WS-Addressing Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1227 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-28 13:52:59 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 13:52:59 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: WS-Addressing submission is currently being profiled. Should we wait for the a w3c proposed recommendation? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1226] Conformance claim URI
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 28 Jan '05

28 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1226 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-28 13:51:33 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1226&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1226&group_id…) Summary: Conformance claim URI Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1226 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-28 13:51:33 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 13:51:33 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: section 2.4 the conformance claim URI needs to be defined View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1225] Relationship to WS-I Basic Profile
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 28 Jan '05

28 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1225 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-28 13:50:25 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1225&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1225&group_id…) Summary: Relationship to WS-I Basic Profile Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1225 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-28 13:50:25 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 13:50:25 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: In section 1.2 needs to be fleshed out. Needs discussion of the relationship to WS-I BP. View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1224] Decide on appropriate set of conformance targets
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 28 Jan '05

28 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1224 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-28 13:35:43 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1224&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1224&group_id…) Summary: Decide on appropriate set of conformance targets Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1224 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-28 13:35:43 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 13:35:43 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Section 2.2 lists a number of conformance targets. Many of which are not currently in use. The majority of conformance targets appear to be satisfied with the targets from WS-I BP 1.1 View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1223] Profile scope Appendix B (Extensibility Points from Referenced Specs )
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 28 Jan '05

28 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1223 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-28 13:34:03 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1223&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1223&group_id…) Summary: Profile scope Appendix B (Extensibility Points from Referenced Specs ) Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1223 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-28 13:34:03 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 13:34:03 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Include by reference the WS-I BP 1.1 Extensibility points. Add any others for additional reference specification from Appendix A View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1222] Profile scope Appendix A (Reference Specs)
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 28 Jan '05

28 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1222 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-01-28 13:30:58 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1222&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1222&group_id…) Summary: Profile scope Appendix A (Reference Specs) Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1222 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: - Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-28 13:30:58 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-01-28 13:30:58 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Include by reference all of the reference specs from WS-I BP 1.1. Are there any others that need to be included?? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

SetResourceProperty and WSDM
by Fred Maciel 28 Jan '05

28 Jan '05

Hi, > Should make WSDM aware about the 'set resource property' issue. > (Provided wants WSDM to be 'aligned' with the OGSA profile.) > Fred is the OGSA-WSDM liaison. I raised the issue at the WSDM teleconference earlier today. First of all, from the MUWS part 2 spec: "Specifically, the interface MUST include the GetResourceProperty operation defined by [WS-RP] and MAY include the GetMultipleProperties, SetResourceProperties and QueryResourceProperties operations." So, SetResourceProperties is not mandatory in WSDM. In the configuration capability, it says that: "WS- ResourceProperties SetResourceProperty operation MAY be used to change a configuration value." Again, not mandatory. So, whether SetResourceProperties is a MUST or not will depend on the specific mapping from MUWS to a given domain. And in the teleconference I was given a very good example, which is CIM. It is quite natural to do setup on resources (configure, control, etc.) using SetResourceProperties (that would be functionality similar to SetProperty, ModifyInstance, etc. in WBEM). This single operaton should be enough. Conversely, if we don't use it, we will need a *zillion* different operations (one for each and every property in every class of the model?), which will be a pain. So, no problems for now, but we (OGSA and WSDM) will definitely need to keep in sync. And I'd say that their input above is valuable. Regards, Fred Maciel. P.S. - For the WBEM operations, see: http://www.wbemsolutions.com/tutorials/CIM/wbem-operations.html

1 0

WSDM-related materials
by Fred Maciel 27 Jan '05

27 Jan '05

Hi, - Here is the URLs for the WSDM demo on the blackberry. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/11086/WSDMDemo.010805.ppt - The presentation on the WSDM mapping to CIM, which was created by IBM, HP, CA and Cisco, is on the WSDM mailing list, but only available to TC members. Sigh... (They will publish the document -- they are working on the IP issues now). See ya, Fred Maciel.

1 0

EMS Teleconference minutes - 17 January 2005
by Andreas Savva 26 Jan '05

26 Jan '05

EMS teleconference minutes from Jan 17. Url: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-ems-20050117/… (Sorry for the delay. I wasn't actually asked to take minutes but Hiro wouldn't let me off the hook.) -- Andreas Savva OGSA EMS Teleconference - 17 January 2005 ========================================= * Participants Ravi Subramaniam (Intel) Dave Snelling (Fujitsu) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Mark Morgan (UVa) Tom Maguire (IBM) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Andrew Grimshaw (UVa) Ian Foster (ANL) Dave Berry (UK NeSC) * General discussion - Agreed that the EMS space lacks concrete specs. - Initial focus on capabilities to guide effort in exploring the area---it seems premature to do an EM profile. - JSDL and WS-Agreement do seem to have some momentum behind them. But these pieces do not offer sufficient coverage to do a profile. - (Clarification that a Profile's purpose is interoperability.) - Proposal for discussing what a reasonable aim is---a gap analysis of sorts. - Agreed to the following: 1. Document the process of defining what we want to do a) Look at what there is in EMS (OGSA version 1.0) b) Subset it c) Union with outside specs d) Decide where new groups are needed (to fill the gaps) - Goal: short-term (candidate) profile that can produce something demonstrable - Clarification that "short term" means "year's end" - *Candidate* profile since it only has to identify the activity leading to a spec. - Detail concepts first? Might not finish until the profile is done. - Profile to cover as a minimum a "Hello world" level of functionality. 2. Look at what is there already in the EMS draft and what is the minimum subset that can be done as a first step. (To do.) 3. What is basic functionality? - Talk to a service/container/resource to start up something - If the executable is there just pass a path to it, or get it to the machine first---in some simple manner (no full-blown deployment configuration; just a data transfer) - (Ian) GT4 as an example that covers such simple functionality - (Dave) Unicore/unigrids as another example - Other efforts might offer input here, e.g., EGEE, etc - These examples might look very similar but their are subtle differences Proposal: Do a BoF on basic EM functionality. - The two projects above are willing to put forward complete WSDL specifications of relevant port types. This is important because they can be used as the starting point for standardization. - Should the entry point be the existence of WSDL specs? - Various opinions, but the rough consensus towards 'yes.' - Would like to also get Condor on-board (but need WSDL) - Condor has a WSDL sub-project: "Condor meets Soap" aka 'birdbath' - (DRMAA as an example that has an abstract definition but looks like a lot of work to put in WSDL) - Shared understanding that we can look at existing effors, invite groups to join, but cannot force participation in such a standards effort. And cannot just stop and wait. - Is there a preference to start from scratch? - Or, make sure that other efforts are also reviewed? - Consensus that it is easier to start from existing examples Action: Ian will send a pointer to the list describing the GRAM interfaces (Done) - Agreed that background work to review the various material is needed first. - For BoF need to also leave door open for people who may be proposing solutions not based on WSRF (e.g., OMII, etc) - The BoF is in addition to the profile work; fill the perceived gap in the EM space while the profile defines interoperability. - Clarified that the BoF is specifically on the submission interface; not the whole EMS space. - JSDL and WS-Agreement might be pieces used in the Profile. - (And might need more bofs for other pieces as gaps become more visible) - Forming such a group motivated/became obvious due to the work in EMS - Need/desire to make sure that it fits in OGSA-EMS - And that can only be done through participating in the proposed new group. Action: Work on drafting the charter for the BoF - Obviously do not to call it EMS; it is focused on a small subset: 'submission API' - This is not technical (design) work. - If the process is - (simple definition/provisioning), instantiation, execution, management - then BoF preparation is to decide what the minimal subset is. - Andrew and Dave volunteered to do a draft (initial proposal) of what is the important basic functionality and scope it as part of F preparation (initial proposal) (partly done) Additional actions: Action: Dave B to send WS-Agreement and DAIS link to the list. Action: Ravi volunteered to do a map of existing specs; what is there, now * Next EMS call: Jan 26 (to include BoF discussion) * OGSA EMS version 1.0 revision update - Andreas did a revision of the EMS section in OGSA version 1.0, to address some lingering issues: removing the term 'task' and modifying the explanation for 'Job' - Key changes: - Replace 'task' with generic 'unit of work' or delete as appropriate - Change order in definition of 'Job' so that the statement 'Job is a resource' comes later. Also remove too concrete statements (job is not workflow) that raised many comments at GGF12. Action: Andreas will fold in changes to next (final) draft and review in a subsequent call. (Done)

1 0

CMM document -- final call
by Fred Maciel 26 Jan '05

26 Jan '05

To: CMM-WG and OGSA-WG Hi, Here is version 28 of the CMM document, and a spreadsheet with the changes. (The main changes from last version were defining acronyms and correcting the references). Hopefully I will submit this one to the GGF editor. If you find any problems, please send to the CMM-WG and/or OGSA-WG mailing lists within one week. Thanks in advance, Fred Maciel.

1 0

Proposed agenda for Jan. 26th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on January 26th Wednesday from 5pm to 7pm (CST). 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: 0126 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 * Nov 23rd and Jan 24th calls: (maybe Jan 17th too) http://tinyurl.com/5fxfd/minutes-ems-20041123/ https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050124/en/1 Agenda bashing 2) Feb F2F meeting and GGF13 update (10 min) Andrew will submit F2F logistics if available. 3) Basic profile discussion (40 min) Tom will provide next version of BP before the call. 4) Basic EM profile discussion (30 min) - Catalog applicable standards - Review known standards wrt to the architecture - Identify initial set 5) Simple job API WG BoF discussion (30 min) Scoping for Job Creation and Management. Plan for GGF13 BoF. 6) Wrap up (10 min) AOB Jan. 31 (5pm-7pm CDT) OGSA roadmap discussion Feb. 2 (10am-noon CDT) Data design team Feb. 2 (5pm-7pm CDT) <TBD> ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Teleconference minutes - Jan. 24, 2005
by Andreas Savva 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

Minutes attached. Gridforge link: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050124/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd.

1 0

Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-EMS Meeting Agenda (2005-01-17)
by Ian Foster 24 Jan '05

24 Jan '05

Ravi: You've asked to pointers to relevant standards, but to first order there aren't any. That does make me wonder whether it is even possible to have a meaningful conversation about an EMS interoperability profile at this time, given that a profile is supposed to document an established use of established standards. I believe that the interfaces developed by the Globus team for GT4 GRAM are relevant to an EMS discussion, in that they represent the result of an intensive effort to develop WSRF-based job management interfaces. Documentation is at: http://www-unix.globus.org/toolkit/docs/development/3.9.4/execution/wsgram/ The concepts are described here: http://www-unix.globus.org/toolkit/docs/development/3.9.4/execution/key/WS_… And some of the interfaces here: http://www-unix.globus.org/toolkit/docs/development/3.9.4/execution/wsgram/… Regards, Ian. At 11:14 PM 1/14/2005 -0800, Subramaniam, Ravi wrote: >Hi, > > > >Here is the agenda for this Mondays teleconference. As agreed at the last >F2F we will be focusing on developing an EMS interoperability profile. We >will use the Draft Profile template (Tom, Dave) as a reference (attached >for you convenience). We encourage persons who are active in relevant GGF >and other standard organization WG and people who are very familiar with >relevant standards to attend these meetings to provide the right and >informed perspectives and inputs. > > > >If you would be willing to educate the rest of the participants on one or >more applicable standards that you are very familiar with please let me >know and I can schedule some time. These would be brief overviews that >would lead to more detailed discussions in future as we narrow on the >appropriate set. > >Please send me pointers to definitive documentation on any standards that >you feel should be part of the EMS profile. I will compile these as >references for those who need to delve deeper. > > > >Dial-In > > > >Date: January 17th, 2005 (Monday) > >Time: 5 7 PM (CST) > > > >The dial-in number for Monday > > Free: +1-866-639-4741 > > Toll: +1-574-935-6703 > > PIN: 8980700 > > > >Screen share service will be provided. > > URL: <http://ogsa.glance.net/>http://ogsa.glance.net > > Session key: 0117 > > > >See more explanation: > ><http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html>http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html > > > >Agenda: > > > * Roll Call (5 mins) > * Agenda Bashing (10 mins) > * Ratification of previous minutes (5 mins) > * EMS profile discussion (tentative) (90 mins) > * Catalog applicable standards > * Review known standards wrt to the architecture > * Identify initial set > * Opens and wrap up. (10 mins) > > > > > >Thanks! > > > >Ravi _______________________________________________________________ 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

6 6

Data: Proposed agenda for Wednesday 26th January (also potential change of time)
by Dave Berry 24 Jan '05

24 Jan '05

Dear all, Here is a proposed agenda for the data telcon on Wednesday January 26th, which will be at the usual time of 8.00am (PST) / 11.00am EST / 4.00pm (GMT) / 5.00 pm (CET). We have been asked to consider a slightly earlier time slot. Can people make half-an-hour earlier? UK Dial In: 0845 245 0224 USA Freephone: 1866 838 0046 International Dial In: +44 1452 542309 PIN: 632 065 (Reference 2527179) 1) Early discussion (5 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Minutes approval (attached) - https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/Minutes_19th_Janua ry_2005/en/1 Agenda bashing 2) Update on outstanding actions (10 min) - Simon to mail the list about different types of metadata (data resource vs. service). - Dave to check with Dave Snelling when Basic Profile is ready for review. - Discuss time slot in e-mail. 3) Architecture issues (40 min) - I have been working on the straw man document, with input from a small group of people. This is beginning to take a coherent shape and I hope to distribute it more widely after next week's London meeting. The telcons are useful in resolving issues that arise while writing this straw man. - Is data transfer a service? - Are we transferring data (bits) or information (with some semantic content)? - Can we use the BasicFiles interface for both data and information? - How do we specify data types? - Other issues - Do we have volunteers to write subsections of the document? 5) Wrap up (5 min) AOB DONM - F2F in London, Feb 2nd. Dave Berry Research Manager, National e-Science Centre 15 South College St., Edinburgh Tel: +44 131 6514039

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] FW: Issue #1 proposed resolution
by Ian Foster 24 Jan '05

24 Jan '05

I think the technical term is "carefully architected set of specifications" not "house of cards" (-: Regards -- Ian. At 05:10 PM 1/21/2005 +0000, Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) wrote: >Well, it probably doesn't, because WSRF is now decoupled from WS-Addressing >through the definition of the "abstract" resource Access Pattern, which >defines different embodiments for different ways of accessing state. > > >Abdeslem >/////////////// > >-----Original Message----- >From: Stephen Pickles [mailto:stephen.pickles@manchester.ac.uk] >Sent: 21 January 2005 17:05 >To: 'Djaoui, A (Abdeslem)'; 'OGSA-WG' >Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] FW: Issue #1 proposed resolution > >Doesn't this make the whole house of cards (WSRF and OGSA) >come tumbling down? > >Please tell me I'm wrong! > >Stephen > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On > > Behalf Of Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) > > Sent: 21 January 2005 09:47 > > To: 'OGSA-WG' > > Subject: [ogsa-wg] FW: Issue #1 proposed resolution > > > > > > Just in case you have not seen this, It appears RefProps will > > be removed > > from EPR's. Something we should discuss. > > > > Abdeslem > > ///////////////// > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: public-ws-addressing-request(a)w3.org > > [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Ugo Corda > > Sent: 20 January 2005 01:33 > > To: Mark Little; Mark Baker > > Cc: public-ws-addressing(a)w3.org > > Subject: RE: Issue #1 proposed resolution > > > > > > > > Mark and Mark, > > It looks like RefProps are gone as of yesterday: see > > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i001 . > > > > Ugo > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: public-ws-addressing-request(a)w3.org > > > [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of > > Mark Little > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 5:26 PM > > > To: Mark Baker > > > Cc: public-ws-addressing(a)w3.org > > > Subject: Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark, I have a distinct dislike for RefProps/RefParams, as > > > you're aware. However, putting my pragmatic hat on for a > > > moment, I don't see them vanishing in this release of the > > > specification. That doesn't prevent us from debating their > > > utility (or lack thereof), but I suspect it would be better > > > to take it off this mailing list if we're to try to maintain > > > the timeline that was proposed by the submitters and agreed > > > upon by the members of the group. Who knows, there may be a > > > change in a subsequent release? > > > > > > Also, I'm not sure why you moved my text around, but it could > > > change the context of what was originally intended. I didn't > > > mention the word "identification" at all in the proposed > > text I said. > > > > > > Mark. > > > > > > ---- > > > Mark Little, > > > Chief Architect, > > > Arjuna Technologies Ltd. > > > > > > www.arjuna.com > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Mark Baker" <distobj(a)acm.org> > > > To: "Mark Little" <mark.little(a)arjuna.com> > > > Cc: <public-ws-addressing(a)w3.org> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 12:26 AM > > > Subject: Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution > > > > > > > > > > Mark, > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 10:41:53PM -0000, Mark Little wrote: > > > > > I think the pragmatic view on RefProps/RefParams has to > > > be that they > > > will > > > > > stay (rightly or wrongly, there are implementations and > > > > > specifications > > > out > > > > > there that now rely on them). > > > > > > > > This is a new spec we're working on, no? Those > > implementations can > > > > continue to depend upon whatever version of the spec they > > currently > > > > depend upon. Nothing we do here can break them, AFAICT. > > > > > > > > > I agree that the term "identifier" can be > > > > > contentious. However, so can the term "state". How about just > > > > > calling it/them "additional information that referencing > > > > > specifications [aka > > > using > > > > > specifications] or implementations need in order to ultimately > > > > > address > > > the > > > > > endpoint service"? > > > > > > > > >From my POV, there appears to be agreement to removing > > the part of > > > > >the > > > > spec that talks about using RefProps for identification. > > > Adding "in > > > > order to ultimately address" back in would be akin to > > undoing that > > > > change. The point of the change, as I see it, is to get > > > identifying > > > > information out of the RefPs, and into the URI, and I > > > consider that an > > > > enormous improvement over the WS-A submission. > > > > > > > > > That way we're not saying *what* goes in there, only > > > > > *why*. > > > > > > > > IMO, identification is a "what". > > > > > > > > Mark. > > > > -- > > > > Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. > > > http://www.markbaker.ca > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________ 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

6 6

Teleconference minutes - 19 January 2005
by Andreas Savva 24 Jan '05

24 Jan '05

Minutes attached. Gridforge location: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050119/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA Teleconference - 19 January 2005 ===================================== * Participants Abdeslem Djaoui (RL) Ian Foster (ANL) Andrew Grimshaw (UVa) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Tom Maguire (IBM) Mark Morgan (UVa) Takuya Mori (NEC, ANL) Steve Newhouse (OMII) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Dave Snelling (Fujitsu) Latha Srinivasan (HP) Ravi Subramaniam (Intel) Jem Treadwell (HP) Minutes: Andreas Savva * Jan 10 and 12 minutes approved with no changes * F2F logistics - Place is Westin at O'Hare airport. - Logistics are not completely worked through yet. Action: Andrew to - Book conference room for the OGSA-WG meeting (3 days: Feb 14-16) - [And an additional one day for the non-OGSA meeting] - And let the group know of the room rate (for staying at the hotel) Action: Hiro will update F2F agenda, etc to reflect discussions and re-post. * GGF13 preparation - Hiro added InfoD to the RM session (now a shared session) and submitted the OGSA scheduling requests to Stacey. - There is a plan to do an EM-related BoF. Stacey should know about it but it is not the job of the OGSA-WG to tell her---the proposed-chairs should do it. Preparation has not progressed to that point yet so Andrew as Area Director will take care of it. Action: Andrew as Area director to send an email to the directors of the relevant Area (SRM: Bill, Stephen) to let them know of the proposed BoF; also to Stacey to reserve a slot. - Andrew mentioned that on the Data call there was a discussion for a similar BoF for Data. * Basic profile review Reference: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-basic-… ** Introduction/Front matter - Many changes since the last review. Because the document was still taking form these were not change tracked. The authors will do change tracking for future versions. - Ian re-wrote the Introduction. - Security section by Dave S. - Basic security addition is not reflected in the front matter yet. - Tom fleshed out many compliance statements. - Agreed to track issues via trackers. All comments should be deleted for the next version: either address in the text or move to the tracker, if substantial enough. Action: Andreas to create issues tracker. [Done. https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…] - Submit issues to the tracker directly or to the ogsa-wg list (and someone (probably Andreas) will put in the tracker.) The tracker is set to send mail to the list on addition of new artifacts only. ** Profile Conformance - Conformance targets need update. Probably some of these will be deleted. - Conformance Claim URI: Not defined yet. Reuse the WS-I approach. - There are two different types of statements marked with different prefix letters: {R, E} - [R]: Requirements statement. These are fairly consise. They may restrict but not extend an existing specification. (They should not be used to try and write new specifications.) - [E]: Extensibility points. Call out points where extensions may be made. E.g., where open content might be required. These highlight areas where behaviour may vary. (In a sense these are "warning flags.") ** Addressing - Using submission drafts as base; not trying to actively follow the latest ones. - R1002: Highlights an issue with the current spec.; the use of policy elements. Needs follow up. - R1003: It might be the case that the URL contains the ServiceName but this is not required. This statement is trying to codify the desired behaviour. *** 3.1.5 Resilient References - The intention is to describe ogsi-similar renewable references. - Focus is on capturing the renewable reference aspect and NOT on how to register a name so that it can be resolved. - 'Speculative' addition of rns:resolve since the RNS spec. may provide this operation. - There was a proposal for standardization of renewable references (RR). But it seems to be falling between the cracks of various groups: W3C Addressing group has placed it out of scope; WSRF does not seem to be the right place for it. *** 3.1.6 Reference properties - R1005: This statement will probably disappear into a tracker artifact. It is not easy to test or check. - In terms of terminology note that the profile deals with a particular message exchange. So terms like SENDER and CONSUMER are used instead of CLIENT/SERVER since the latter would describe a relation beyond a specific message exchange. - "Encoding scheme" might be work for a higher level profile. ("Correlateable properties?") *** 3.2 Addressing MIH Includes just boilerplate text for now. Need to think about it and revisit as WS-Addressing progresses. (It is expected that by March the W3C Addressing WG wil have a committee draft for this.) ** Resource embodiment - One major issue here is how far Data requirements can be accomodated while promoting interoperability. It might be good idea to schedule a joint-session with DAIS on this topic at GGF13. *** Resource properties **** 5.1.1 Property names - Qnames to point to the type of a resource property. And assume that the entity retrieving that information knows or can find out what they mean. - (There was a side-argument on why type information cannot be returned in general. Many implications if dynamic resource property elements are allowed and how they should be supported. Might want to record this as an issue but it is not likely to be something that can be solved in this profile.) - (DTDs were also mentioned as an alternative.) **** 5.1.2 Metadata descriptor WSRF has made this optional so it should not be made mandatory here. But it is probably a good idea to make it a separate section to draw out the relevant issues. *** 5.3 Query resource properties - (Issue) Requires XPath 1.0; but there is no standard serialization for an XPath response; so it ends up being implementation dependent. (XPath 2.0 on the other hand defines the response as well.) *** 5.4 ResourceProperty change notification - Might not want to require Topics. (Make no statements about their usage.) - Then they could not be used in a manner compliant to this profile but people could still experiment with them. And the profile could be kept simple for now. - Adding them in a later version would not affect other parts. *** 5.5 Set resource property - Another problematic function. Ordering issues are one typical issue (but there are other related issues discussed in the WSRF TC). - Revisit after checking with likely users: WSDM and possibly GT - Proposal at the moment is to give them the same treatement as Topics: say nothing about them and leave the field open for experimentation. ** 6 Resource lifetime - Not sure how far to mandate support for immediate destruction. - Proposal: A resource that can be created by message exchange should support immediate destruction - Might want to require response by all (even if a resource was statically created). - The semantics are defined by WSRF; not in the profile. In particular there was some discussion on what a destruction message means (in particular a successful reply). - A long discussion on whether to allow other behaviours, e.g., not mandate that a resource has to support this behaviour. It seemed to be due to a misunderstanding and it was agreed that the discussion should be taken offline; revisit in a later call if still an issue. *** 6.4 Notification of pending destruction - Might be something to propose to the WSRF group since it requires functionality not currently specified. ** Security - A first attempt to do a security profile segment. It uses the WS-I basic security profile, HTTP over TLS, and TLS - Note terminology: SENDER/RECEIVER not CLIENT/SERVER since the statements are with respect to message exchange roles as noted earlier. - It is transport-based security: not necessarily session-based--- it could be message-based. This seemed not to come out clearly enough from the text. - Contrast with WS-I basic security profile - WS-I profile statements are that "if something needs to be secured this is how it should be done" while this profile makes statemens on what functionality is required - Restricted authentication to just x509 certs. (And therefore disallowing username/passwd authentication.) This should probably be stated more clearly. ** Other business - Tom has the pen and will produce the next version of the basic profile document.

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1211] What must a service satisfy before it can be called an "OGSA service?"
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 24 Jan '05

24 Jan '05

A new artifact has been added: 1211 Submitted by: Andreas Savva Submitted date: 2005-01-24 14:39:38 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1211&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1211&group_id…) Summary: What must a service satisfy before it can be called an "OGSA service?" Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1211 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 3 Last Modified By: Last Modified: 2005-01-24 14:39:38 Submitted By: Andreas Savva Submit Date: 2005-01-24 14:39:38 Assigned To: David Snelling File(s): <None> Description: [Original slightly edited.] On 11 Jan 2005, at 20:01, Dave Berry wrote: >> The following two statements were made (as >> recorded in the minutes [Jan 10, 2005]): >> >> - An 'ogsa service' must be one that implements the >> profile (or parts of the profile) in the defined >> manner. >> >> - Note that there is no a requirement to implement >> everything in the profile. Often the statements >> are of the in form: >> "if something is done it must be done this >> way" so if something is not implemented all >> the related statements do not apply. >> >> It's not clear from this what constraints MUST be >> satisfied for a service to be called an "OGSA service" - >> can the profile define a minimum set of elements that a >> service MUST implement? >> >> Dave. On 15 Jan 2005, at 07:37, Dave Snelling wrote: > Make sure this gets set as an issue, e.g. tell > Andreas. This is an aspect of Profile that the WS-I > community accept as read, but that we need to spell out. > > Well caught Dave. > View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] FW: Issue #1 proposed resolution
by Savas Parastatidis 23 Jan '05

23 Jan '05

Dear all, I agree with some of what Steve said bellow :-)) The change does make a difference in implementations because if the information that was meant to be included in the Reference Properties is now encoded in the Address property of an EPR (the URI) it cannot be echoed back as SOAP headers. This was part of the semantics of Reference Properties. For a resource-oriented specification like WSRF, however, using URIs to identify resources is a good solution. On this I agree with Steve. The semantics of WSRF do not have to change even if it wasn't abstracted away from WS-Addressing. What is lost is the ability to echo back as SOAP headers any resource-specific information that may be required by a SOAP intermediary to identify the targeted resource. If having SOAP headers is a requirement, though, I don't see why Reference Parameters couldn't be used. So, while Reference Properties have been removed, Reference Parameters are still there and while I would personally like to see them go too, I don't think it'll happen. The semantics of Reference Parameters are slightly different but I don't see why WSRF couldn't use them, if it needed to, instead of Reference Properties to carry resource-specific information. Best regards, -- Savas Parastatidis http://savas.parastatidis.name > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of > Steve Tuecke > Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 9:55 PM > To: Ian Foster > Cc: 'Stephen Pickles'; 'OGSA-WG'; Steve Tuecke; Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) > Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] FW: Issue #1 proposed resolution > > As far as I can tell, this decision has basically no effect on WSRF. > The argument being made by some in the WS-A working group is that it is > equivalent and more true to the Web to carry a resource identifier as > part of the EPR address, rather than in a separate ResourceProperties > field -- that is, the resource reference should all be in the URI, > rather than split between a URI and separate resource properties. > Implementation-wise it certainly makes very little difference. And the > WSRF working group had already abstracted the WS-Resource reference and > access pattern, so that it is not tightly coupled to WS-A and reference > properties anyway, so WSRF specification-wise it makes no difference. > > -Steve > > On Jan 21, 2005, at 1:59 PM, Ian Foster wrote: > > > I think the technical term is "carefully architected set of > > specifications" not "house of cards" (-: > > > > Regards -- Ian. > > > > > > At 05:10 PM 1/21/2005 +0000, Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) wrote: > > > > Well, it probably doesn't, because WSRF is now decoupled from > > WS-Addressing > > through the definition of the "abstract" resource Access Pattern, > > which > > defines different embodiments for different ways of accessing state. > > > >

3 3

Last CFP: Workshop on Business Services Networks (BSN)
by Gagnon, Stephane 22 Jan '05

22 Jan '05

Apologies for cross-postings. Please send to interested colleagues and students Last Call for Papers IEEE EEE05 International Workshop on Business Services Networks (BSN) ===================================================================== Hong Kong - March 29, 2005 http://elab.njit.edu/bsn.html Sponsored by IEEE Computer Society Held in Conjunction With IEEE International Conference on e-Technology, e-Commerce and e- Service (EEE-05) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hong Kong - March 29 to April 1, 2005 http://www.comp.hkbu.edu.hk/~eee05 & The IEEE EEE05 Workshop: Mobility, Agents, and Mobile Services (MAM) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Hong Kong - March 29, 2005 http://voip.csie.ntu.edu.tw/workshop/eee05 Organized by Management Development Center (MDC) Faculty of Business and Information Technology University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT), Canada e-Business Laboratory (eLab) School of Management New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT), USA In Cooperation With Academic Partners: e-Centre for Infonomics http://www.infonomics.org.uk AIS SIGeBiz http://citebm.business.uiuc.edu/ebiz AIS SIGPAM http://www.sigpam.org AIS SIGSEMIS http://www.sigsemis.org Industry Partners: Integration Consortium http://www.integrationconsortium.org Object Management Group (OMG) http://www.omg.org Abstract: Business Services Networks (BSN's) are IT infrastructure intermediaries where Web Services can be securely published, reused, and invoked based on Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) standards. They allow vendors to sell their software as a service and offer business users a secure network to compose complex business processes. With proper permissions, users can automate several Business Process Management (BPM) functions such as: (1) analyze their requirements and match them to network resources, (2) model their business processes in a complete architecture, (3) define key operational conditions for processes, (4) execute their processes on the grid, and (5) monitor and manage processes in real-time. In addition, BSN's extend the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) of each network participant by providing reliable Business to Business (B2B) transaction management and Service Level Agreements (SLA). They also offer exceptional profit opportunities to vendors based on Utility Computing, On Demand, or Pay-Per-Use business models. They effectively represent a new form of e-marketplace where IT resources and business services are the commodities exchanged. Scope: We invite papers that address both business and technical issues of BSN's from various perspectives, including BSN operators, software vendors, business adopters, developers, and end-users. We encourage contributions from both academia and industry. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. BSN Operators: a. Business Models and Architectures b. Spin-Offs from Outsourcing Providers c. Mobile Operators and Grid Services d. Industry-Specific B2B Integration Alliances e. Inter-BSN Alliances and Interoperability 2. Software Vendors: a. Market Value for Software Vendors b. SOA-Enablement of Software Vendors c. Pricing and Marketing On Demand Software d. Service Level Agreements (SLA) e. Software Vendors from Developing Countries 3. Business Adopters: a. Comparing IT Sourcing Models (BSN, ASP, etc.) b. International Provisioning and Adoption Barriers c. Real-Time Transaction Monitoring d. Quality of Service (QoS) e. Accounting Systems for Utility Computing 4. Developers: a. Process Oriented and Model Driven Architectures (UML, BPMN, MDA, etc.) b. Synthesizing Process, Data, and Component Models (MOF, BPSM, etc.) c. Process Specifications and Execution (WS-CDL, BPEL4WS, etc.) d. Composite Processes with Messages, Documents, and Services e. ebSOA, Business Patterns, and Universal Business Language (UBL) 5. End-Users: a. Service and Process Oriented Application Development Methods b. Intelligent Automated Process Discovery and Composition c. Semantic Web, Ontology Applications, and Domain Specialization d. User Specialization and Automated Coordination e. Security, Privacy, and Trust Keynote Speaker: To be announced. Paper Submission: Please, limit your paper to 8 pages, following the IEEE Computer Society Press Proceedings Author Guidelines: http://www.computer.org/cspress/instruct.htm. We only accept paper submissions in PDF format through our review system: http://elab.njit.edu/bsn. The submission of an abstract is handled by the same system. This is optional and authors are free to submit either or both an abstract and their full paper anytime until January 24, 2005. While our system is a "double-blind" review process, we are happy to confirm that we also accept papers that are formatted for a "one- side-blind" review. In that case, while authors are asked to remove all author information in the paper and PDF file, it may be possible that their work and references clearly reveal the author's identity. We want to reassure authors of "one-side-blind" papers that their work is equally welcomed to the workshop. Our reviewers will be asked to reveal any potential conflict of interest, and in that case they will be assigned other papers. As well, all reviewers will be asked to review both types of papers equally without any discrimination. For any other questions regarding this workshop or its submission and review processes, please feel free to contact workshop chairs directly. Journal Publications: The enhanced version of the selected papers published in the workshop will be invited for publication in: - A special issue on "Business Services Networks" in the International Journal of Cases on Electronic Commerce (IJCEC), Information Resources Management Association (IRMA), USA. It is expected this special issue will be published in October-December 2005. ISSN (Online): 1548-0615 - ISSN (Paper): 1548-0623, http://www.idea-group.com/journals/details.asp?id=4285 - A special issue on "Web Services, Business Processes, and Services Science" in the International Journal of Web and Grid Services (IJWGS), Inderscience Publishers, USA. It is expected this special issue will be published in January-March 2006. ISSN (Online): 1741- 1114 - ISSN (Paper): 1741-1106, https://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=47 - A special issue on "Business Service Management and Service Level Agreement" in the International Journal of Internet and Enterprise Management (IJIEM), Vol. 5, No. 2, Inderscience Publishers, USA. It is expected this special issue will be published in April-June 2007. ISSN (Online): 1741-5330 - ISSN (Print): 1476-1300, http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=39 Registration: Presenters and participants must register by February 28, 2005. Please use the registration instructions and fees provided on the EEE-05 web site: http://www.comp.hkbu.edu.hk/~eee05/registration. Deadlines: December 25, 2004 Abstract Submission Due (Optional) January 24, 2005 Full Paper Submission Due February 14, 2005 Paper Acceptance Notice Sent to Authors March 1, 2005 Camera-Ready Papers Due March 29, 2005 Workshop Workshop Chairs: Dr. Stephane Gagnon School of Management New Jersey Institute of Technology, USA E-mail: gagnon(a)njit.edu Dr. Patrick C. K. Hung Faculty of Business and Information Technology University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT), Canada E-mail: patrick.hung(a)uoit.ca Steering Program Committee: Prof. Terry Wu Management Development Center (MDC) Faculty of Business and Information Technology University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT), Canada Prof. Anup Kumar CECS Department University of Louisville, USA Prof. Elena Ferrari Dipartimento di Scienze della Cultura, Politiche e dell'Informazione University of Insubria at Como, Italy Prof. Barbara Carminati Dipartimento di Scienze della Cultura, Politiche e dell'Informazione University of Insubria at Como, Italy Dr. Kerry Taylor ICT Research Centre Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Australia Dr. Casey K. Fung Mathematics and Computing Technology Boeing Phantom Works, USA Dr. Vladimir Tosic Department of Computer Science The University of Western Ontario, Canada Prof. Aoying Zhou Department of Computer Science and Engineering Fudan University, China Prof. Jia Zhang Department of Computer Science Northern Illinois University, USA Prof. Hannes Werthner Honorary President, IFITT University of Innsbruck & EC3 Vienna, Austria Dr. Ravi Bapna Department of Operations and Information Management University of Connecticut, USA Dr. Morad Benyoucef School of Management University of Ottawa, Canada Dr. Oleg Gusikhin Supply Chain Management Research Ford Research & Advanced Engineering, USA Dr. Michael zur Muehlen Wesley J. Howe School of Technology Management Stevens Institute of Technology, USA Prof. Dan Zhang Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT), Canada Dr. Jen-Yao Chung T. J. Watson Research Center IBM, USA Dr. Richard Soley Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Object Management Group (OMG), USA Prof. Pascal Pecquet Editor in Chief, http://www.cyber-gestion.com University of Montpellier I, France

1 0

FW: Issue #1 proposed resolution
by Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) 22 Jan '05

22 Jan '05

Just in case you have not seen this, It appears RefProps will be removed from EPR's. Something we should discuss. Abdeslem ///////////////// -----Original Message----- From: public-ws-addressing-request(a)w3.org [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Ugo Corda Sent: 20 January 2005 01:33 To: Mark Little; Mark Baker Cc: public-ws-addressing(a)w3.org Subject: RE: Issue #1 proposed resolution Mark and Mark, It looks like RefProps are gone as of yesterday: see http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i001 . Ugo > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-addressing-request(a)w3.org > [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark Little > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 5:26 PM > To: Mark Baker > Cc: public-ws-addressing(a)w3.org > Subject: Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution > > > > Mark, I have a distinct dislike for RefProps/RefParams, as > you're aware. However, putting my pragmatic hat on for a > moment, I don't see them vanishing in this release of the > specification. That doesn't prevent us from debating their > utility (or lack thereof), but I suspect it would be better > to take it off this mailing list if we're to try to maintain > the timeline that was proposed by the submitters and agreed > upon by the members of the group. Who knows, there may be a > change in a subsequent release? > > Also, I'm not sure why you moved my text around, but it could > change the context of what was originally intended. I didn't > mention the word "identification" at all in the proposed text I said. > > Mark. > > ---- > Mark Little, > Chief Architect, > Arjuna Technologies Ltd. > > www.arjuna.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Baker" <distobj(a)acm.org> > To: "Mark Little" <mark.little(a)arjuna.com> > Cc: <public-ws-addressing(a)w3.org> > Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 12:26 AM > Subject: Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution > > > > Mark, > > > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 10:41:53PM -0000, Mark Little wrote: > > > I think the pragmatic view on RefProps/RefParams has to > be that they > will > > > stay (rightly or wrongly, there are implementations and > > > specifications > out > > > there that now rely on them). > > > > This is a new spec we're working on, no? Those implementations can > > continue to depend upon whatever version of the spec they currently > > depend upon. Nothing we do here can break them, AFAICT. > > > > > I agree that the term "identifier" can be > > > contentious. However, so can the term "state". How about just > > > calling it/them "additional information that referencing > > > specifications [aka > using > > > specifications] or implementations need in order to ultimately > > > address > the > > > endpoint service"? > > > > >From my POV, there appears to be agreement to removing the part of > > >the > > spec that talks about using RefProps for identification. > Adding "in > > order to ultimately address" back in would be akin to undoing that > > change. The point of the change, as I see it, is to get > identifying > > information out of the RefPs, and into the URI, and I > consider that an > > enormous improvement over the WS-A submission. > > > > > That way we're not saying *what* goes in there, only > > > *why*. > > > > IMO, identification is a "what". > > > > Mark. > > -- > > Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. > http://www.markbaker.ca > > > > >

3 2

RE: [ogsa-wg] FW: Issue #1 proposed resolution
by Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) 21 Jan '05

21 Jan '05

Well, it probably doesn't, because WSRF is now decoupled from WS-Addressing through the definition of the "abstract" resource Access Pattern, which defines different embodiments for different ways of accessing state. Abdeslem /////////////// -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Pickles [mailto:stephen.pickles@manchester.ac.uk] Sent: 21 January 2005 17:05 To: 'Djaoui, A (Abdeslem)'; 'OGSA-WG' Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] FW: Issue #1 proposed resolution Doesn't this make the whole house of cards (WSRF and OGSA) come tumbling down? Please tell me I'm wrong! Stephen > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On > Behalf Of Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) > Sent: 21 January 2005 09:47 > To: 'OGSA-WG' > Subject: [ogsa-wg] FW: Issue #1 proposed resolution > > > Just in case you have not seen this, It appears RefProps will > be removed > from EPR's. Something we should discuss. > > Abdeslem > ///////////////// > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-addressing-request(a)w3.org > [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Ugo Corda > Sent: 20 January 2005 01:33 > To: Mark Little; Mark Baker > Cc: public-ws-addressing(a)w3.org > Subject: RE: Issue #1 proposed resolution > > > > Mark and Mark, > It looks like RefProps are gone as of yesterday: see > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i001 . > > Ugo > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: public-ws-addressing-request(a)w3.org > > [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of > Mark Little > > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 5:26 PM > > To: Mark Baker > > Cc: public-ws-addressing(a)w3.org > > Subject: Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution > > > > > > > > Mark, I have a distinct dislike for RefProps/RefParams, as > > you're aware. However, putting my pragmatic hat on for a > > moment, I don't see them vanishing in this release of the > > specification. That doesn't prevent us from debating their > > utility (or lack thereof), but I suspect it would be better > > to take it off this mailing list if we're to try to maintain > > the timeline that was proposed by the submitters and agreed > > upon by the members of the group. Who knows, there may be a > > change in a subsequent release? > > > > Also, I'm not sure why you moved my text around, but it could > > change the context of what was originally intended. I didn't > > mention the word "identification" at all in the proposed > text I said. > > > > Mark. > > > > ---- > > Mark Little, > > Chief Architect, > > Arjuna Technologies Ltd. > > > > www.arjuna.com > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mark Baker" <distobj(a)acm.org> > > To: "Mark Little" <mark.little(a)arjuna.com> > > Cc: <public-ws-addressing(a)w3.org> > > Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 12:26 AM > > Subject: Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution > > > > > > > Mark, > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 10:41:53PM -0000, Mark Little wrote: > > > > I think the pragmatic view on RefProps/RefParams has to > > be that they > > will > > > > stay (rightly or wrongly, there are implementations and > > > > specifications > > out > > > > there that now rely on them). > > > > > > This is a new spec we're working on, no? Those > implementations can > > > continue to depend upon whatever version of the spec they > currently > > > depend upon. Nothing we do here can break them, AFAICT. > > > > > > > I agree that the term "identifier" can be > > > > contentious. However, so can the term "state". How about just > > > > calling it/them "additional information that referencing > > > > specifications [aka > > using > > > > specifications] or implementations need in order to ultimately > > > > address > > the > > > > endpoint service"? > > > > > > >From my POV, there appears to be agreement to removing > the part of > > > >the > > > spec that talks about using RefProps for identification. > > Adding "in > > > order to ultimately address" back in would be akin to > undoing that > > > change. The point of the change, as I see it, is to get > > identifying > > > information out of the RefPs, and into the URI, and I > > consider that an > > > enormous improvement over the WS-A submission. > > > > > > > That way we're not saying *what* goes in there, only > > > > *why*. > > > > > > IMO, identification is a "what". > > > > > > Mark. > > > -- > > > Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. > > http://www.markbaker.ca > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Scoping for Job Creation and Management
by David Snelling 21 Jan '05

21 Jan '05

Folks, Thanks to Ian for the snippet of GRAM. I'll use it as a basis for my action item to start the scoping exercise for this proposed BoF. 1) I would exclude the delegation stuff. This seems to layer well with GRAM (e.g. it is optional) and therefore should be a separate specification. The combined GRAM and delegation usage pattern would be the subject of a Profile. 2) I believe that the ManagedJobFactory::createManagedJob concept is in scope. I think it should take an open content job description so that the current Globus XML description, JSDL, a "run BLAST" thing , and even run Unicore AJO would all work. The Profile might later mandate that for interoperability only JSDL applies. 3) Now that we have a manageable-job, we need operations on it. From Ian's list, I only have a problem with the implied linkage between release and something the the job description (this is an inhibitor to composition, but that discussion it for the new WG). Some might want other control functions: hold, abort (stops execution but doesn't destroy the resource). This specification should be interoperable from the outset, e.g. no extensibility elements. 4) I agree that the data transfer aspects are out of scope, as is provisioning. A JSDL document (as well as the GRAM equivalent) tells the job container where to get the input files, where to put the output files, and what the source for the executable is. How this happens is not the problem of this interface. 5) The specification should be a WSDL interface and associated semantic description. This doesn't mean that only WSDL based presentations are allowed at the BoF or at the WG, just that the eventual output would be a WSDL spec. 6) The new specification must align and compose with the OGSA Base Profile. There some interesting questions here. The GRAM and Unicore interfaces certainly assume the WSRF infrastructure, but it is clearly possible to build job management web services without WSRF. The WG should discuss the extent to which composition (as opposed to extension) it possible without duplication of function. [Just to clarify: We should not include a 'cancel' operation that does the same function as the Resource Lifetime 'destroy' operation, but if the interface makes sense without either, then the dependancy on lifetime could be relaxed.] It should come as no surprise that I would like to see the whole Basic Profile exploited as much as possible, but that's a discussion for later. 7) Job naming, job migration, job scheduling, scheduling candidates, job placement, job restart/recovery, are all out of scope. Thoughts? Do we have a volunteer to start drafting a BoF Call and Draft Charter? > (Need to verify operation names.)DelegationFactory::createDelegation > This (optional) step allows a client to delegate credentials that > will be required for correct operation of WS GRAM, RFT, or the user's > job process. Such credentials are only used when referenced in the > subsequent job request and under the condition that WS GRAM or RFT is > configured to make use of the DelegationFactory, respectively. > > Delegation::refresh > This (optional) step allows a client to update the credentials > already established for use with the previous createDelegation step. > > > ManagedJobFactory::createManagedJob > This required step establishes the stateful ManagedJob resource which > implements the job processing described in the input request. > > > ManagedJob::release > This (optional) step allows the ManagedJob to continue through a > state in its lifecycle where it was previously held or scheduled to be > held according to details of the original job request. It is a fault > to try to release a hold that was not set in the job request or that > was already released. > > > ManagedJob::setTerminationTime > This (optional) step allows the client to reschedule automatic > termination to be different than was originally set during creation of > the ManagedJob resource. > > > ManagedJob::destroy > This (optional) step allows the client to explicitly abort a job and > destroy the ManagedJob resource, in the event that the scheduled > automatic termination time is not adequate. > > ManagedJob::subscribe > This (optional) step allows a client to subscribe for notifications > of status (and particularly lifecycle status) of the ManagedJob > resource. For responsiveness, it is possible to establish an initial > subscription in the createJob() operation without an additional > round-trip communication to the newly created job. > > > ManagedJob::queryProperty and queryMultipleProperties > These (optional) steps allow a client to query the status (and > particularly lifecycle status) of the ManagedJob resource. -- 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)

2 4

Informal OGSA EMS & Data Architecture meetings
by Steven Newhouse 19 Jan '05

19 Jan '05

On the 1st & 2nd of February there will be informal meetings to discuss OGSA EMS and Data Architecture in London, UK. This is an opportunistic meeting due to the presence of various OGSA interested people in London for a meeting on 31/1/05. The meeting will take place at Imperial College in central London. The London e-Science Centre has kindly agreed to host the event in their access grid room - http://www.lesc.ic.ac.uk/resources/accessgrid.html. Some AG access may be available for some of the time. A tentative schedule has been defined: Feb 1st PM: EMS Discussion Feb 2nd AM: EMS Discussion Feb 2nd PM: Data Discussion Dave Berry is co-ordinating the data part of the meeting. I will be co-ordinating the EMS part. Please contact us directly for further information. The motivation behind these meetings are to advance the discussion in advance of the upcoming F2F meeting. 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 Jan. 19th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 19 Jan '05

19 Jan '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on January 19th Wednesday from 5pm to 7pm (CST). 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: 0119 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 * Jan 10th and 12th calls: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050110/en/1 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050112/en/1 Agenda bashing 2) Feb F2F meeting and GGF13 update (10 min) Hiro will submit revised F2F meeting agenda before the call. Andrew will submit F2F logistics if available. Hiro will submit revised GGF13 session plan before the call. 4) Basic profile discussion (90 min) > The latest draft of the OGSA BP has been uploaded to the > 'working drafts/basic profile' folder. > This will be the draft that we will be discussing on the Wednesday > 1/19/05 telecon. After Tom's edit, Dave Snelling added security section and Hiro has made this doc publicly accessible. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA_Basic_Profile_dr… n/2 5) Wrap up (10 min) AOB Jan. 24 (5pm-7pm CDT) OGSA v1 and glossary final call & Basic profile discussion Jan. 26 (10am-noon CDT) Data design team Jan. 26 (5pm-7pm CDT) basic EM profile discussion Jan. 31 (5pm-7pm CDT) Basic profile discussion ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 1

GT4 GRAM Design Details
by Ian Foster 18 Jan '05

18 Jan '05

Dear All: I promised on today's call to send some information on the GT4 GRAM design. Here it is. I'm sure it's not the ultimate answer, but a lot of thought and experience have gone into defining this set of WSRF/WSN-compliant portTypes for job submission and management. Comments and questions would be appreciated. Regards -- Ian. GT4 GRAM The GRAM documentation is at: http://www-unix.globus.org/toolkit/docs/development/3.9.4/execution/wsgram/ Architecture and concepts are described at: http://www-unix.globus.org/toolkit/docs/development/3.9.4/execution/key/WS_… In brief, a "GRAM server" is implemented by a "managed job factory", which responds to requests to create managed jobs, and a "delegation factory", which responds to requests to create delegated credentials. Internally, its implementation uses an RFT server to manage staging of input, executables, and output, including streaming output. The interfaces for the managed job factory and managed job are described here: http://www-unix.globus.org/toolkit/docs/development/3.9.4/execution/wsgram/… The delegation interfaces are described here: http://www-unix.globus.org/toolkit/docs/development/3.9.4/security/delegati… The only really complex operation is ManagedJobFactory::createManagedJob, which takes as an argument a job description in an XML-format job description language described at http://www-unix.globus.org/toolkit/docs/development/3.9.4/execution/wsgram/…. This language can describe arguments, executables, staging requirements, resource requirements, etc. I also enclose a draft document that may be of interest. This is a very early draft of a GT4 Primer that I'm working on. Pages 29-43 provide a tutorial introduction to GT4 GRAM components from the client perspective. [BTW Any comments would be of great interest!!] Finally, the following (from the "Architecture and Concepts" page referenced above) describes the protocol: Protocol Overview As depicted above, the WS GRAM protocol is centered around the creation of a stateful ManagedJob resource using the ManagedJobFactory createJob() operation. A simple batch job may involve nothing more than this initial client creation step, with all other job lifecycle steps occuring automatically in the server. A number of optional protocol elements are available for more complex scenarios. (Need to verify operation names.)DelegationFactory::createDelegation This (optional) step allows a client to delegate credentials that will be required for correct operation of WS GRAM, RFT, or the user's job process. Such credentials are only used when referenced in the subsequent job request and under the condition that WS GRAM or RFT is configured to make use of the DelegationFactory, respectively. Delegation::refresh This (optional) step allows a client to update the credentials already established for use with the previous createDelegation step. ManagedJobFactory::createManagedJob This required step establishes the stateful ManagedJob resource which implements the job processing described in the input request. ManagedJob::release This (optional) step allows the ManagedJob to continue through a state in its lifecycle where it was previously held or scheduled to be held according to details of the original job request. It is a fault to try to release a hold that was not set in the job request or that was already released. ManagedJob::setTerminationTime This (optional) step allows the client to reschedule automatic termination to be different than was originally set during creation of the ManagedJob resource. ManagedJob::destroy This (optional) step allows the client to explicitly abort a job and destroy the ManagedJob resource, in the event that the scheduled automatic termination time is not adequate. ManagedJob::subscribe This (optional) step allows a client to subscribe for notifications of status (and particularly lifecycle status) of the ManagedJob resource. For responsiveness, it is possible to establish an initial subscription in the createJob() operation without an additional round-trip communication to the newly created job. ManagedJob::queryProperty and queryMultipleProperties These (optional) steps allow a client to query the status (and particularly lifecycle status) of the ManagedJob resource.

1 0

OGSA Basic Profile 1.0 v006 Draft uploaded to gridforge
by Tom Maguire 18 Jan '05

18 Jan '05

The latest draft of the OGSA BP has been uploaded to the 'working drafts/basic profile' folder. This will be the draft that we will be discussing on the Wednesday 1/19/05 telecon. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA_Basic_Profile_1.… Tom

2 1

RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-EMS Meeting Agenda (2005-01-17)
by Subramaniam, Ravi 17 Jan '05

17 Jan '05

Hi, Thanks for all the responses. It is in a way heartening to see this both from a participation perspective and with respect to my sanity. I was uncomfortable with the way the EMS discussion going with trying to "nail down" something without having any wood to nail to. I thought I was seriously missing something and decided to go with the "flow". I also had this uncomfortable feeling that my attempts to do the right thing were being misunderstood by some. I think we are not ready from "a reasonable agreed upon architecture" to the "candidate set of specs for a profile". I also thing the value of OGSA is from defining the architecture which acts as the scaffolding for the many specifications that are each being developed with a narrow focus (not bad in itself since that is their stated purpose). These specifications for the most part are "works in progress" and one or two that are ready or close to ready do not make a profile for an areas like EMS. We are also not agreed on the concepts in the architecture as the current exercise in re-labeling the concepts indicates. We have a strawman but more work is necessary to vet the architecture. On the other hand, we have implementations (or implementations in flight) in and around this space. From what I know/understand most are capable of scheduling execution but not managing execution. I am, therefore, uncomfortable basing the architecture definition on a few examples which could leave out other legitimate examples. We need to drive more participation and arrive at a desired architecture. This activity need not take a long while and can be in parallel to activities going on in candidate specs. Also as more implementations adopt some of these lower specs we will have more data points. I wanted to add my 2 cents to this discussion. It looks like we may want to modify the agenda to discuss the issues raised. ??? Talk to you later today. Ravi -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Smith [mailto:csmith@platform.com] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 11:48 AM To: Fred Maciel; 'David Snelling'; Hiro Kishimoto Cc: 'Ian Foster'; Subramaniam, Ravi; ali(a)epcc.ed.ac.uk; andreas.haas(a)sun.com; andreas.savva(a)jp.fujitsu.com; asm100(a)doc.ic.ac.uk; D.Snelling(a)fle.Fujitsu.com; darrenp(a)cadence.com; dejan(a)hpl.hp.com; flon(a)isi.edu; grimshaw(a)cs.virginia.edu; hornwp(a)us.ibm.com; jian(a)xcerla.com; jon.maclaren(a)man.ac.uk; naber(a)man.poznan.pl; nitzberg(a)pbspro.com; 'OGSA-WG'; pruyne(a)hpl.hp.com; Rajic, Hrabri; ramin.yahyapour(a)udo.edu; Scott.Jackson(a)pnl.gov; sjn5(a)doc.ic.ac.uk; tkojo(a)mvi.biglobe.ne.jp; troney(a)ncsa.uiuc.edu; Uwe.Schwiegelshohn(a)udo.edu; v.sander(a)fz-juelich.de; Wolfgang.Ziegler(a)scai.fraunhofer.de Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-EMS Meeting Agenda (2005-01-17) On 17/1/05 10:57, "Fred Maciel" <fred-m(a)crl.hitachi.co.jp> wrote: > >> 3) A Job Management WSDL spec - would be nice, but to >> do it right we need WSDM first. > > How about JSDL? Works without WSDM (but yes, should work better with WSDM). > JSDL is not intended to be a document format to encapsulate job state. It is very clearly focused on the definition side of things. Other document formats and manageability interfaces will be required for job management. Basing this on WSDM seems to be the "right thing" to do. -- Chris

1 0

Re: OGSA-EMS Meeting Agenda (2005-01-17)
by David Snelling 17 Jan '05

17 Jan '05

Folks, On 17 Jan 2005, at 19:24, Andrew Grimshaw wrote: > I think it is premature to think about a profile except in general > terms of what we think should go in it. I think we need to think about > spec’s, forming working groups to generate those specs, and so on. > (Forming working groups involves charters, BOF’s, etc.) Agreed. It is definitely too early to talk about profiling EMS (even candidate profiles). But, we really do need a WG started to define a minimal set of interfaces that actually allow us to run "hello World" on a Grid. I'm not sure I agree with, or really understand, Andrew's terms below, but then that is what a WG is all about. > In particular I think we should focus on the basic services we have > identified so far (or as they were renamed to avoid confusion): > > Service containers > Actors > Solutions > Solution Factories > Actor descriptors – which may be the same as something another group > is working on – a description of the execution component. Hiro help me > here. > > And so on. We then need to make sure all of the players who may want > to be included are contracted: e.g., Globus, EGEE, > OMII, SGE, Platform, PBS, Virginia, and who ever else wants to be > involved. I would add to this list Unicore, NAREGI, and China Grid all of which have running interfaces parallel to the GRAM interface in Globus. All these groups have suggested to me in the past few days that they want to join a WG on this topic. OMII is discussing it actively. JSDL is ready for a delivery mechanism, .... In short, a BoF is in order. -- 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

Data: Proposed agenda for Wednesday 19th January
by Dave Berry 17 Jan '05

17 Jan '05

Dear all, Here is a proposed agenda for the data telcon on Wednesday January 19th, which will be at the usual time of 8.00am (PST) / 11.00am EST / 4.00pm (GMT) / 5.00 pm (CET). UK Dial In: 0845 245 0224 USA Freephone: 1866 838 0046 International Dial In: +44 1452 542309 PIN: 632 065 (Reference 2483651) 1) Early discussion (5 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Agenda bashing 2) Update on outstanding actions (5 min) - Simon to flesh out his metadata question for discussion in a broader group. 3) Update on OGSA Profile work (5 mins) 4) Update on upcoming meetings (10 min) - UK meetings, Feb 1-2? - OGSA F2F, Chicago, Feb 14-16. 5) Architecture issues (30 min) - Is data transfer a service? - Is there any standards activity w.r.t. replication? Should we organise a workshop / F2F meeting on this topic? - Do we need a standalone cache service? - Other questions 5) Wrap up (5 min) AOB DONM Dave Berry Research Manager, National e-Science Centre 15 South College St., Edinburgh Tel: +44 131 6514039

1 0

Information for GGF13
by Hiro Kishimoto 16 Jan '05

16 Jan '05

To GGF13 attendees ---- Hiro Kishimoto -----Original Message----- From: Ann M. Collins Subject: [gfsg] More Info for GGF13 Grid Forum Korea has a great website with loads of information on GGF13. Please check it out and share the information! http://www.gridforumkorea.org/ggf13/index.htm Thanks! Ann ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ann M. Collins Director, Events & Conferences Global Grid Forum Tel: +1-630-252-4679 Fax: +1-630-252-4466 Mobile: +1-630-715-1943 Mail to: collins(a)ggf.org

1 0

OGSA-EMS Meeting Agenda (2005-01-17)
by Subramaniam, Ravi 15 Jan '05

15 Jan '05

Hi, Here is the agenda for this Monday's teleconference. As agreed at the last F2F we will be focusing on developing an EMS interoperability profile. We will use the Draft Profile template (Tom, Dave) as a reference (attached for you convenience). We encourage persons who are active in relevant GGF and other standard organization WG and people who are very familiar with relevant standards to attend these meetings to provide the right and informed perspectives and inputs. If you would be willing to educate the rest of the participants on one or more applicable standards that you are very familiar with please let me know and I can schedule some time. These would be brief overviews that would lead to more detailed discussions in future as we narrow on the appropriate set. Please send me pointers to definitive documentation on any standards that you feel should be part of the EMS profile. I will compile these as references for those who need to delve deeper. Dial-In Date: January 17th, 2005 (Monday) Time: 5 - 7 PM (CST) The dial-in number for Monday Free: +1-866-639-4741 Toll: +1-574-935-6703 PIN: 8980700 Screen share service will be provided. URL: http://ogsa.glance.net <http://ogsa.glance.net/> Session key: 0117 See more explanation: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html Agenda: 1. Roll Call (5 mins) 2. Agenda Bashing (10 mins) 3. Ratification of previous minutes (5 mins) 4. EMS profile discussion (tentative) (90 mins) a. Catalog applicable standards b. Review known standards wrt to the architecture c. Identify initial set 5. Opens and wrap up. (10 mins) Thanks! Ravi

1 0

How to make effective use of WS-BaseFault in GFF specs
by Steve Loughran 14 Jan '05

14 Jan '05

Hello, I'm looking for some pointers on how people have made effective use of WS-BF in specifications, and what is the general best practise. 1. How do people wrap SOAPFaults? Do they define a WrappedSoapFault extension of BaseFault? Do they extract the unofficial extra fields, like the Axis HttpFaultCode and stack trace? 2. What is the i18n policy on descriptio? Is it assumed to be in en-us or whatever the implementor chooses. Given that <description> is allowed multiple times, a language attribute would let me return messages in different languages. Does anyone do that in conjuction with the appropriate xml:lang attributes? 3. How do people handle native language exceptions? Have the framework generate a SOAPFault and wrap it, or redo all the work themselves? I'm planning on having a fairly generic 'DeploymentFault' with extra info that I want for diagnosis (hostname, process identifier, stack trace), and under there a few more faults (WrappedSoapFault, LanguageFault) with extra data. All my operations will declare DeploymentFault as their sole return type; the Java equivalent of 'throws Exception'. That way future implementations get scope to add more stuff. For specific faults which do not need to add new fields, I am not going to type them, but just use the BaseFault/ErrorCode element with different QNames for each fault. Thoughts? -Steve

1 0

Teleconference minutes - January 12, 2005
by Andreas Savva 13 Jan '05

13 Jan '05

Minutes attached. Ref: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050112/en/1 -- Andreas Savva OGSA Teleconference - January 12, 2005 ====================================== * Participants Mike Behrens (R2AD, LLC) Bill Horn (IBM) Mark Morgan (UVa) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Jem Treadwell (HP) Jeffrin J. Von Reich (HP) Apologies: Fred Maciel, Ravi Subramaniam, Hiro Kishimoto, Dave Snelling, Andrew Grimshaw Minutes: Andreas Savva * Jan 10 minutes approval postponed for next call * OGSA Version 1.0 and Glossary status Discussed status and process to finalization: OGSA version 1.0 still has an incompletely updated EMS section. The Glossary may be affected by this update. It was agreed that this review was final for the other parts of the two documents and that a subsequent (partial) review should be done just for the updated text. Subsequent reviews to be done by email: to the list and to each person mentioned on the Authors list. Target submission is as soon as possible and definitely within January. The OGSA version 1.0 and Glossary are to be submitted to the Editor together. Their submission will also be coordinated with the CMM document submission, in so far as determining and using the final GFD numbers in the citations. ** Glossary Document walkthrough of draft 8 (not on gridforge yet) Jem has accepted all changes from previous edits. Changes showing are those from Hiro and from some comments from Olegario. - Some additions of terms for consistency and also to put definitions against the shorter entry. - Naming update: deleted 'uniquely' from the general definition (ref: Andrew's mail) - Deferred discussion around 'task' until the EMS section is finalized. - Agreed to remove 'lightweight' from the SOAP definition - Agreed to remove initial sentence from 'Security considerations.' It is not a valid reason for security considerations not being applicable. - To update the GFD for the CMM document (when known) Jem will upload a new draft to gridforge and wait for the final version of the OGSA document. ** OGSA version 1.0 Document walkthrough of draft 21 (from gridforge) Changes are relative to the version submitted for public comment. (And will be accepted for the next draft.) - Abstract updated to be more specific on what the document covers. - Copyright and IPR statement moved to the back - Added Glossary mention as well as Glossary section pointing to the Glossary document. - Changed the statement about the next version being a recommendation to more general statement about recommendation documents (to reflect current consensus). - Discussed Ian's comment about defining virtualization further. Agreed that it is not necessary to go in more detail at the moment (not beyond what's in this document and the Glossary) - To update the copyright notice: 2002-2005 - Lighter color scheme for Figures 1-3 is better but some text is still difficult to read. Agreed to review figures for legibility once more and make sure the text is clearly visible. - Agreed to change "SOAP as the primary transport" to "SOAP as the primary message exchange format" in infrastructure services. - Agreed to change the examples after the "unit of work to be managed" in EMS to specifically state "OGSA application or legacy." (And will revisit this section for a final review) - Discussed 'job is a resource' statement and agreed that some clarification is necessary; re-arranging text to put this statement to the end of the paragraph might be clearer. - Need to revisit spelling once more to make sure it is only US spelling as agreed in previous reviews (some words still remain). - CIM/WBEM is ok as is (even though it should really be just WBEM). - Naming udner Information services is not updated yet. Andreas to update according to Andrew's email. - References: [OGSA RM] bookmark seems broken. Andreas to update. Andreas will upload a new (hopefully final) version and mail authors and the list for a final review.

1 0

Proposed agenda for Jan 12th (5-7pm CST) call
by Andreas Savva 12 Jan '05

12 Jan '05

Here's the proposed agenda for the Wednesday, January 12, 5pm to 7pm (CST), call. [A number of people might not be able to make it or might have to leave early. So this is likely to be a short call, perhaps only one hour: 5pm to 6pm.] ----- Dial-in numbers: Free: +1-888-452-0308 Intl/Toll: +1-484-644-0505 PIN: 71815 Screen share service: URL: http://ogsa.glance.net <== ** NEW ADDRESS ** Session key: 0112 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 there is quorum) * Jan 10 call: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050110/en/2 Agenda bashing 2) OGSA version 1.0 and Glossary (semi-)final review Review the documents in preparation for re-submission to the GGF Editor. The review is limited to issues raised in the public comments and subsequent revisions to address them. (No post-v1 discussion.) We will not go through the documents in detail; please review them in advance. Note: There are still a few open issues with the latest drafts. If these issues are addressed and final drafts are ready we will do a final review. Latest drafts: OGSA version 1.0: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-spec/en /21 or http://tinyurl.com/5fxfd/draft-ggf-ogsa-spec/en/21 Glossary: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-glossar y/en/16 or http://tinyurl.com/5fxfd/draft-ggf-ogsa-glossary/en/16 3) Wrap up (10 min) AOB Next call schedule: Jan. 17 (5pm-7pm CST) EMS design team Jan. 19 (5pm-7pm CST) Basic profile discussion -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd.

1 0

Teleconference minutes - January 10, 2005
by Andreas Savva 11 Jan '05

11 Jan '05

Minutes attached. Gridforge: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050110/en/1 -- Andreas Savva OGSA Teleconference - January 10, 2005 ====================================== * Participants Dave Berry (NeSC) Abdeslem Djaoui (RL) Ian Foster (ANL) Andrew Grimshaw (UVa) Bill Horn (IBM) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Tom Maguire (IBM) Mark Morgan (UVa) Takuya Mori (NEC, ANL) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Dave Snelling (Fujitsu) Ravi Subramaniam (Intel) Jem Treadwell (HP) Jay Unger (IBM) Minutes: Andreas Savva * January 5 minutes approved with no changes * Basic profile draft review Very early draft uploaded to Gridforge: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA_Basic_Profile_dr… - Fairly close in structure to profile template. It is an early draft and incomplete. - Some discussion at the beginning on extensibility and why interoperability does not apply. - Includes Addressing, Resource, Resource Lifetime, Service Group, Base Faults. - Addressing: Reference properties: - If there is a policy extensibility it must be the first one - Sender cannot construct the EPR (might be problematical; how to check) - Signatures? - Which version of WS-Addressing is used or is WS-Addressing discussed in generic terms? - Statements assume the version submitted to W3C. - WS-Addressing statements relate only (/mainly) to EPRs - (Message information and faults not fleshed out (MIH)) - Should Resource be included in the basic profile. Does the resource access pattern preclude 'generic' web services? - Need clarification of client using OGSA (what it can expect) vs service that is in OGSA (what it must provide and how). - An 'ogsa service' must be one that implements the profile (or parts of the profile) in the defined manner. - As such web services are not precluded; but they will not be 'ogsa services' - This is a point for further discussion and it was agreed that a section to address this issue should be added: What the client has to understand and what is required of services that participate. - For example the client would have to understand EPRs - The second point is what this document is describing - Is everything included in the profile or are more additions planned? - Still incomplete. For example, base notification will probably be added. - How about protocols? - This basic profile is an extension of the WS-I basic profile. As such, what is included in the WS-I basic profile is also included here. - Note that there is no a requirement to implement everything in the profile. Often the statements are of the form: "if something is done it must be done this way" so if something is not implemented all the related statements do not apply. - For example, UDDI: no requirement to use but if used then it must be used in the way that the WS-I basic profile describes - Also note that the OGSA basic profile does not (cannot) reduct/remove restrictions from the WS-I profile. - As a general description approach see R1003: - WS-I allows for optional QName for wsdl:service; an instance that the ogsa profile might want to impose a stricter restriction. - It was agreed that this is ok as a technique (and defering agreement on content for now) - Should the basic profile also include security? - Different thoughts of how to include security. It might be too complex to include it at this moment. - Perhaps do a base profile and a security base profile separately first and then talk about how they should be used together. - Agreed that the numbering used in the document is confusing. Need to come up with a clearer method. ** 1.12 Resource embodiment Again here it might be a good idea to separate the requirements on the clients and services. ** 1.14 Get resource property Set or Query are not included. As an example, at a later point 'query' might be included as an option. The profile could then mandate what is required for this functionality, if provided. In other words, the original specification allows support for many query languages, but the profile could state that as minimum support for XPath version x.y.z must be provided. (Without precluding different or extended query mechanisms on properties.) ** 1.16 Scheduled Termination - Different levels of compliance are also possible. For example, suppose that 'Scheduled termination' must be supported. It could be supported by providing the operation but returning a fault, or it could be supported and implemented according to some optional method described in the original specification. - In other words, all the profile typically says is that the operation must return a valid response (and valid responses are according to the original specification). - Again it might be possible to place more restrictions on the required semantics than what the original spec intended. But the original spec might have been defined the way it was for certain reasons. Care is needed. ** 1.17 Mandates SGs for collections - Phrasing seems overly restrictive; might want to allow for other mechanisms to provide the semantics of the collection - Clarified that statement relates to "if service groups are implemented" it is not intended to preclude other mechanisms for collections. ** Other In general, note that restrictions in the original specifications still apply. - Any Missing functionality? - Naming: It should be part of a base profile even though there are no hard standards yet. - 'Base' here refers more to the maturity of the specifications rather than their place in the architecture. - Renewable References: not much progress yet. There was a proposal to push it into WS-Addressing group in W3C. Not sure how it will evolve. - Providing required resource properties definition and metadata on them - e.g., mandate the WSRF optional metadata on resource properties themselves? - WSDM - Not sure if it will be part of the basic profile. May be one level up. But some parts of it might belong at a lower level: e.g., identity. ** Next steps: Tom has the pen. He will pass it to Dave S tomorrow. Next time to review this draft: Next Wednesday Jan. 19 ** Proposal to draw up a list of all relevant standards and references to them to make it easy to read up and follow the discussion. Ravi volunteered to do a first draft. * Next F2F agenda https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/agenda_for_2005_Feb_m… - Hotel in question is Westin (O'Hare Airport) - Andrew to follow up with hotel reservation - (Might want to have the conference room for an extra day at the end for a separate (non-OGSA) meeting) - Add Ravi to the list of participants - Main topic is Basic profile discussion. Current schedule proposal splits this discussion across 2 days. - Agreed that it would be more efficient to keep the Basic profile discussion on the same day and split the day into a discussion of the different sections of the profile - So Monday is dedicated to the base profile exclusively: Work out the detailed schedule later on - Tuesday: move on to other topics: EMS, Data, Naming - Proposal to have EMS & Data refactoring before the EMS & Data profile discussion - Is there enough representation from the Data team? - Andrew and Mark will be attending. - Dave B cannot make it. He will raise the issue on the Data call this week. - What is the difference between session (5.2) and the earlier EMS session? Discussion of the architecture versus the profile. - Proposal to discuss the EMS profile on the next EMS call agenda: Discuss which standards should be included. * GGF13 session schedule update Reference: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2005/01/msg00009.html Proposal for Information services to share the Resource Management section - There has been some interest from INFO-D group to make a presentation to the OGSA-WG; maybe 20 minutes. No specifics yet. - Consensus that it would be ok to make the RM session a shared session for this purpose if necessary. Work out the details later. * Next call - Review of OGSA version 1.0 and Glossary drafts (final review if possible) - Hiro, Andrew, Dave S will not be available (GFSG F2F) - Jem can only attend for the first hour - Andreas to send out agenda; this is likely to be a short call.

1 0

Proposed agenda for Jan. 10th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 10 Jan '05

10 Jan '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on January 10th Monday from 5pm to 7pm (CST). The dial-in number for Monday; Free: +1-866-639-4741 Toll: +1-574-935-6703 PIN: 8980700 Screen share service will be provided. URL: http://ogsa.glance.net <== ** NEW ADDRESS ** Session key: 1210 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 * Jan 5th call: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050105/en/1 Agenda bashing 2) Next F2F meeting update (10 min) Set for Feb. 14 to 16 in Chicago Area. (at some airport hotel). 3) GGF13 session plan update (10 min) Based on the discussion on Jan 5th, Hiro will update. We should send our plan to GGF office shortly. 4) Basic profile discussion (60 min) Tom and Dave will provide early draft before the call. 5) Wrap up (10 min) AOB Jan. 12 (10am-noon CDT) Data design team Jan. 12 (5pm-7pm CDT) OGSA v1 and glossary final call & Basic profile discussion Jan. 17 (5pm-7pm CDT) EMS design team Jan. 19 (5pm-7pm CDT) Basic profile discussion ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 2

Workshop on Business Services Networks (BSN)
by Gagnon, Stephane 06 Jan '05

06 Jan '05

{Apologies for cross-postings; please send to interested colleagues.} Hi, Please join us in Hong Kong on March 29th, 2005 for the IEEE EEE05 International Workshop on Business Services Networks (BSN) - http://elab.njit.edu/bsn.html. Business Services Networks (BSN's) provide infrastructure where Web Services can be securely published, reused, and invoked based on Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) standards. They allow vendors to sell their software as a service and offer business users a secure network to compose complex business processes. BSN's extend the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) of each network participant by providing reliable Business to Business (B2B) transaction management and Service Level Agreements (SLA). We invite readers of the GGF OGSA Working Group mailing list to submit a paper for this workshop. We are particularly interested in hearing about how BSN's can properly integrate emerging standards into their architecture. We also welcome industry case studies about implementing the SOA using BSN's or other forms of On Demand software providers. Please see our CFP for details on using our online submission site. Thanks for your attention and looking forward to reading your papers. Best Regards, Stephane _______________________________________ Stephane Gagnon, Ph.D. Assistant Professor School of Management New Jersey Institute of Technology Central Avenue Building, 3rd Floor Newark, NJ 07102-1982 Office: 973-596-8569 Fax: 973-596-3074 Email: gagnon(a)njit.edu <mailto:gagnon@njit.edu> Web: http://elab.njit.edu <http://elab.njit.edu/>

1 0

Teleconference minutes - 5 January 2005
by Andreas Savva 06 Jan '05

06 Jan '05

Minutes attached. Gridforge location: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050105/en/1 Happy new year. -- Andreas Savva OGSA teleconference minutes - January 5, 2005 ============================================= * Participants Jay Unger (IBM) Jem Treadwell (HP) Latha Srinivasan (HP) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Steve Newhouse (OMII) Takuya Mori (NEC, ANL) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Andrew Grimshaw (UVa) Dave Berry (NeSC) Mike Behrens (R2AD, LLC) Apologies: Dave Snelling Minutes: Andreas Savva * Basic profile update Tom, Dave & Ian are preparing a basic profile draft. They should be ready to discuss it by the next call. * Minutes of Dec 22, Dec 01, Nov 24, Nov 10, and Nov 03 approved with no changes. * Next F2F meeting A lot of difficulty in chosing dates due to holidays and people's committments. Dates finally chosen February 14-15. (With apologies to those who cannot make it.) Location is Chicago, probably at an airport hotel. Andrew has tentatively booked a conference room (200USD/day) at the Westin near the airport. (No need to rent a car.) Action: Andrew to check if we can get the conference room for free if a minimum number of people choose to stay there. (Expected number of participants between 10 and 20) Hiro has sent out a request for participation: - Can attend: Dave Snelling, Ian Foster, Steve Tuecke, Andrew Grimshaw, Jem Treadwell, Hiro Kishimoto, Andreas Savva, Steve Newhouse (probably), Jay Unger (probably) - Cannot attend: Chris Smith, Dave Berry, Latha Srinivasan, Mike Behrnes * GGF13 session plan - Proposal by Hiro on gridforge https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/GGF13_session_plan/en… - Deadline is in February but OGSA has many sessions and dependencies so the plan should be fixed soon. - Fred asked for one more design team session on 'Resource Management.' An 'architecture session' to discuss resource model issues, e.g., GLUE, WS-CIM, JSDL, etc. Note: Once the CMM document is out (expected delivery concurrent with the OGSA version 1.0 and Glossary) the CMM-WG should be closed. Activities are planned to continue within the OGSA-WG. - EMS - Not sure that there will be a draft profile ready by that time. - The GGF session is meant for discussion; no commitment to have a draft ready. - There is a tentative plan between Andrew and Steve N to discuss EM profile issues around 1,2 February in London. - Hiro asked for the details to be made public so that other interested parties, including himself, might consider joining. - The January 17 teleconference is planned for EMS profile discussion. - Naming - Two parts: High level (Human - logical) layers (covered by RNS) and lower 2 levels (WS-Naming requirements) - Andrew would like to get a copy of RR paper discussed within WSRF TC. Not clear whether it was made public. - Suggestion to add Tom Maguire as session owner. Confirm with Tom next week. - Data - Similar with EMS, not sure that there will be a profile draft by that time, but should be able to discuss it. - Concentrating on high-level architecture at the moment. * OGSA version 1.0 & Glossary status - A couple of issues remaining: EMS final draft and naming. Provided these are fixed this week (Andrew sent draft and reply to both; Andreas and Jem to check) then we should be ready for final review next week. - Deadline for comments within group by next call Wednesday - Comments to list and final review on call. - Only looking for sanity checking at this point. - Should co-ordinate with Fred and the submission of the CMM document (GFD number assignments and cross-refs).

1 0

Proposed agenda for Jan. 5th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 05 Jan '05

05 Jan '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on January 5th Wednesday from 5pm to 7pm (CST). Since basic profile draft is not ready yet, "basic profile discussion" is postponed to Jan. 10th call. The dial-in number 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 <== ** NEW ADDRESS ** Session key: 0105 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 * Dec 22 (last call): https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20041222/en/1 * Older: Dec 01: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20041201/en/1 Nov 24: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20041124/en/1 Nov 10: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20041110/en/1 Nov 03: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20041103/en/1 Agenda bashing 2) Next F2F meeting update (20 min) Set for Feb. 14 to 16 in Chicago Area. (at some airport hotel). - Hiro will send out inquiries to the list shortly 3) GGF13 session plan (30 min) Based on the discussion on Dec. 22, Hiro will update GGF13 session plan and share within the group. > - Action: Hiro to produce new GGF13 session schedule and review > again. > - Action: Design team leads to list what WGs or other activities > they do not want to conflict with at GGF13; Send to Hiro. 3) Revised glossary and OGSA V1 doc feedback (20 min) The latest v1 document; https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-spec/e… The latest glossary; http://tinyurl.com/42omd 4) Wrap up (10 min) AOB Jan. 10 (5pm-7pm CDT) Basic profile discussion Jan. 12 (10am-noon CDT) Data design team Jan. 12 (5pm-7pm CDT) Basic profile discussion (?) Jan. 17 (5pm-7pm CDT) EMS design team Jan. 19 (5pm-7pm CDT) Basic profile discussion ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 2

Next OGSA-WG F2F date/place proposal
by Hiro Kishimoto 04 Jan '05

04 Jan '05

Hi all, Happy new year! At the Dec. 20 call I took action item below. > Action: Hiro to confirm Andrew Grimshaw's availability for Jan 25, > 26 @London. It turns out this proposal, Jan 25 & 26 in London, is next to impossible for him. Then second best is Feb. 14 to 16 in Chicago Area. (at some airport hotel). Although it is Vallentyne day, just after Globusworld and close to GGF13. As we've already discussed, the next F2F meeting focused on "Basic Profile" discussion. I confirmed availabilities of interim core members of basic profile and found Feb 14-16 is better than Jan 25 & 26. I will send inquiries to all of OGSA-WG members about your availabilities by email shortly and also talk it on this Wednesday call (Jan. 5). Due to holiday season, it took long time to pick this date and place. ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Data: Proposed agenda for Wednesday January 5th
by Dave Berry 01 Jan '05

01 Jan '05

Dear all, Happy new year! Our next telcon will be on Wednesday January 5th, at the usual time of 8.00am (PST) / 11.00am EST / 4.00pm (GMT) / 5.00 pm (CET). I apologise to any members in Japan who wish to participate for the impracticability of this time slot. UK Dial In: 0845 245 0224 USA Freephone: 1866 838 0046 International Dial In: +44 1452 542309 PIN: 632 065 (Reference 236 1592) 1) Early discussion (5 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Minutes approval (attached) - https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/Minutes_23rd_Novem ber_2004/en/1. Agenda bashing 2) Update on outstanding actions (5 min) - Dave & Mark to look at Globus XIO library spec. - Simon to extract a list of metadata definitions and gaps from our scenarios work. 3) Update on OGSA F2F meeting and ensuing profiles discussion (15 min) - Dave to report 4) Plans for architecture work (15 min) - Discussion 5) General discussion (up to 15 min) 6) Wrap up (5 min) AOB DONM Dave Berry Research Manager, National e-Science Centre 15 South College St., Edinburgh Tel: +44 131 6514039

1 0

Teleconference minutes - 22 December 2004
by Andreas Savva 30 Dec '04

30 Dec '04

Minutes attached. Gridforge location: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20041222/en/1 This was the last call of year. Thanks to all who participated. For your reference the next teleconference is Jan. 5, 2005. Jan. 5 (10am-noon CDT ?) Data design team Jan. 5 (5pm-7pm CDT) Basic profile discussion Jan. 10 (5pm-7pm CDT) Roadmap document discussion Jan. 12 (10am-noon CDT ?) Data design team Jan. 12 (5pm-7pm CDT) Basic profile discussion Jan. 17 (5pm-7pm CDT) EMS design team Happy holidays. -- Andreas Savva OGSA Teleconference 22 December 2004 ==================================== * Participants Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Jem Treadwell (HP) Minutes: Andreas Savva * Minutes for December 20 approved with no changes * OGSA version 1.0 - Reviewed main changes and remaining open issues; also did a number of edits online. - Author/editor re-ordering on first page - Deleted '...purpose and form...' in introduction and changed the way the next version is described. - en-dash to em-dash change for consistency - Requirements section 2.1.: Added 'interoperability' in title - Should be made a separate section in post-v1 versions - Ian's comment on virtualization: post-v1 - Resource management: Changed 'service instances' to 'services' - Reviewed references and style - To do (Andreas) - Figure 2: workflow should be capitalized (Workflow) - Move the copyright and intellectual property notices to the back. - Make sure that spelling is consistent: change english to US spelling - Add MUWS / MOWS references now that WSDM work has reached committee draft. - Add general acknowledgement for public comment reviewers and name Philipp Wieder since he gave very comprehensive comments. - Upload the new draft (draft 21) keeping the changes to draft 20 visible. * Glossary version 1.0 - Reviewed main changes and remaining open issues; also did a number of edits online. - Reviewed references and style. - Reviewed and revised definitions of terms, removed unused ones (e.g., MPICH) and modified others in line with usage (e.g., SLM to refer to manager not management). - To do (Jem) - Add acknowledgement for public comment reviewers - If possible, add all authors in references (do not abbreviate with 'et al'.) Update entries of documents since some have reached stable states. - Upload a new draft (change tracked)

3 4

Profile Definition V1.4
by David Snelling 23 Dec '04

23 Dec '04

Folks, In parallel with my last edit, Ian made a bunch of editorial improvements to section 2 and added a few comments. This version incorporates those changes. Have a happy holiday season. -- 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 agenda for Dec. 22nd call
by Hiro Kishimoto 22 Dec '04

22 Dec '04

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on December 22nd Wednesday from 5pm to 7pm (CST). This is the LAST call of the year. The dial-in number 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 <== ** NEW ADDRESS ** Session key: 1222 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 (Dec. 20 and more) - http://tinyurl.com/5fxfd/minutes-20041220 Jan F2F meeting update (if any) Agenda bashing 2) Revised glossary and OGSA V1 doc introduction (40 min) Introduce revised glossary and version 1.0 and invite people to review it by the first call of next year. - Jem will send out revised glossary before the call. - Andreas will send out revised v1 before the call. 3) Wrap up (10 min) AOB Jan. 5 (10am-noon CDT ?) Data design team Jan. 5 (5pm-7pm CDT) Basic profile discussion Jan. 10 (5pm-7pm CDT) Roadmap document discussion Jan. 12 (10am-noon CDT ?) Data design team Jan. 12 (5pm-7pm CDT) Basic profile discussion Jan. 17 (5pm-7pm CDT) EMS design team ---- Hiro Kishimoto

2 1

Glossary for tonight's discussion
by Jem Treadwell 22 Dec '04

22 Dec '04

Hi, attached is the draft of the Glossary for review on today's call. The main remaining todo is revision of the naming-related terms, and I'm still waiting for some input on that. For those who won't be on the call: everyone have a great holiday! Best regards, - Jem -- Jem Treadwell Hewlett-Packard Company Phone: (732) 577-6043 200 Route 9 North Fax: (732) 577-6003 Manalapan, NJ 07726 E-mail: Jem.Treadwell(a)hp.com

1 0

Profile Definition Document V1.3
by David Snelling 22 Dec '04

22 Dec '04

Folks, Here is the latest version of the Profile description document. There is a whole new section added by Tom "Profile Conformance". I accepted this section and many style edits. The document is clean and fairly easy to read. I have left in, or added, comments that people have raised on email. We will need to address these issue on a call sometime. Comments to the list please. -- 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

Re: [ogsa-wg] Profile documents
by Ian Foster 22 Dec '04

22 Dec '04

Dave's comment captures a major concern I have about how the profile notion seems to be evolving. A profile, in the sense of the WS-I profiles that formed at least the starting point for our discussion, documents a way of using well-established and widely used specifications. I believe we have fairly broad consensus for that definition. However, we are now introducing the idea of a "draft" profile that does not need to be grounded in adoption. In so doing, I fear that we abandon the discipline that will allow us to ensure that profiles represent authoritative statements on how to build Grid systems. GGFers will conclude that a profile is a way to respectability. We will start to see many proposals for profiles, many with no connection to implementation experience or adoption, and I don't see how we will be able to say yes to some and no to others, as we will have no clear rules for doing so. Working groups will start to produce their own profiles, as well. We will end up with a set of profiles that look as diffuse and ill defined as the current set of GGF working groups. Of course, some will be "draft" and some "recommended", but I think that distinction will be lost on the community. DAIS for me represents an excellent test case for what a profile should be. It's a nice piece of work and has at least one academic implementation. However, it hasn't seen any adoption by database vendors. That to me means that it doesn't belong in a profile. This is not to say at all that DAIS is not valuable, or that the DAIS team should not be working to get DAIS adopted by vendors. It's simply saying that a profile isn't the way to do it. Ian. At 09:22 AM 12/21/2004 +0000, Dave Berry wrote: >I definitely want to allow the DAIS spec in the first data profile. >This is partly the chicken and egg question; if a spec isn't in an OGSA >profile, people will be less inclined to implement it. This is >particularly applicable to the DAIS spec, because we want people to >implement it as part of their DBMS systems, not as a standalone >executable. (This is to avoid unnecessary copying of data in the >implementations). _______________________________________________________________ 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

3 2

RE: [ogsa-wg] Profile documents
by Dave Berry 21 Dec '04

21 Dec '04

On reading Ian's message, I wonder whether I was clear. I want the criteria for *submitting* a recommendation profile proposal to admit a spec that has a single implementation. This document will have to go through the normal process before it can become an actual recommendation. This is a similar (although stricter) process to any other recommendation document in the GGF and similar standards bodies. So this process should be well-understood in the community. The process will be stricter than the existing GGF process fir recommendation documents, at the existing process doesn't require any implementation to exist before submitting a recommendation, and has fewer criteria for acceptance as a recommendation. WS-I is primarily a reactive body. GGF needs to show leadership: we should steer the development of Grid technology. On occasion we will face the "chicken and egg" problem, in which people are reluctant to adopt a specification because it isn't part of a profile, but we can't make it part of a profile because it isn;t widely adopted. The process by which a submission becomes a full recommendation seems to me an excellent way of resolving this issue. Any profile document will exist in 'draft' form before it is submitted as a 'recommendation', just as any other specification. As I understand the aim of the profile template document, it is precisely to specify that profiles must have links to implementation experience and adoption, and to define the rules for creating them; i.e. it specifically addresses the concerns that Ian raises. I don't see a problem with 'draft' documents; everyone knows that documents go through a draft stage. Unless Ian's reference to 'draft' profiles was referring to "Informational" profiles? One concern of Ian's that isn't addressed by the profile template document is which bodies can produce profiles. The intention, I believe, is that the OGSA profiles have to be produced by the OGSA WG. I agree that we need some central body that controls the production of OGSA profiles. Dave. -----Original Message----- From: Ian Foster [mailto:foster@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: 21 December 2004 13:04 To: Dave Berry; d.snelling(a)fle.fujitsu.com Cc: ogsa-wg Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Profile documents Dave's comment captures a major concern I have about how the profile notion seems to be evolving. A profile, in the sense of the WS-I profiles that formed at least the starting point for our discussion, documents a way of using well-established and widely used specifications. I believe we have fairly broad consensus for that definition. However, we are now introducing the idea of a "draft" profile that does not need to be grounded in adoption. In so doing, I fear that we abandon the discipline that will allow us to ensure that profiles represent authoritative statements on how to build Grid systems. GGFers will conclude that a profile is a way to respectability. We will start to see many proposals for profiles, many with no connection to implementation experience or adoption, and I don't see how we will be able to say yes to some and no to others, as we will have no clear rules for doing so. Working groups will start to produce their own profiles, as well. We will end up with a set of profiles that look as diffuse and ill defined as the current set of GGF working groups. Of course, some will be "draft" and some "recommended", but I think that distinction will be lost on the community. DAIS for me represents an excellent test case for what a profile should be. It's a nice piece of work and has at least one academic implementation. However, it hasn't seen any adoption by database vendors. That to me means that it doesn't belong in a profile. This is not to say at all that DAIS is not valuable, or that the DAIS team should not be working to get DAIS adopted by vendors. It's simply saying that a profile isn't the way to do it. Ian. At 09:22 AM 12/21/2004 +0000, Dave Berry wrote: I definitely want to allow the DAIS spec in the first data profile. This is partly the chicken and egg question; if a spec isn't in an OGSA profile, people will be less inclined to implement it. This is particularly applicable to the DAIS spec, because we want people to implement it as part of their DBMS systems, not as a standalone executable. (This is to avoid unnecessary copying of data in the implementations). _______________________________________________________________ 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

Teleconference minutes - Dec. 20, 2004
by Andreas Savva 21 Dec '04

21 Dec '04

Minutes attached. Minutes link: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20041220/en/1 or http://tinyurl.com/5fxfd/minutes-20041220/en/1 Link to reviewed profile template document: http://tinyurl.com/5fxfd/draft-ggf-ogsa-profile-template/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd.

2 1

Profile documents
by Dave Berry 21 Dec '04

21 Dec '04

Dave, I was slightly surprised at a couple of points in your proposed document. I'd be curious to understand the thinking behind them. The most surprising was to allow evolving standards as part of a published recommmendation. Doesn't this undermine the idea of a profile as being a stable entity that implementations can build to with confidence that it won't change underneath them? Related to this was the removal of the "stable" term. If I understand the document correctly, an "evolving" spec only has to exist in a standards body; it doesn't necessarily have to be submitted to that body. In GGF terms, it doesn't have to be submitted as a proposed recommendation. Have I got that right? Or are you using "evolving" where previously we used "stable", and "draft" where we previously used "evolving"? I was also surprised that there are no constraints at all on the specs that can be included in an Informational Profile. I guess that makes sense. I was slightly surprised that no-one challenged this, but I suppose most people are interested in the recommendation profiles. I definitely want to allow the DAIS spec in the first data profile. This is partly the chicken and egg question; if a spec isn't in an OGSA profile, people will be less inclined to implement it. This is particularly applicable to the DAIS spec, because we want people to implement it as part of their DBMS systems, not as a standalone executable. (This is to avoid unnecessary copying of data in the implementations). Best wishes, Dave Berry Research Manager, National e-Science Centre 15 South College St., Edinburgh Tel: +44 131 6514039

1 0

Happy Holidays
by Hiro Kishimoto 20 Dec '04

20 Dec '04

Word from Mark Linesch, GGF chairman. ---- Hiro Kishimoto -----Original Message----- From: Linesch, Mark Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 2:21 AM Subject: [gfsg] Happy Holidays All, As we move into the final days of 2004, I wanted to thank everyone for their many contributions throughout 2004. Please extend my thanks also to the many workgroup and research group leaders and participants who dedicate their time and effort to our community. I am proud to be associated with so many talented and dedicated individuals. Thanks again for all your efforts this year. Here's hoping 2005 brings you and your loved ones much joy and success. Regards, Mark

1 0

Proposed agenda for Dec. 1st call
by Hiro Kishimoto 20 Dec '04

20 Dec '04

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on December 1st Wednesday from 5pm to 7pm (CST). The dial-in number for Wednesday. Free: +1-888-452-0308 Intl/Toll: +1-484-644-0505 PIN: 71815 Screen share service will be provided. URL: http://hiro.glance.net Session key: 1201 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) December F2F meeting discussion (30 min) Agenda discussion Any other update 3) Interested party list discussion (30 min) Revised template review. - http://tinyurl.com/5fxfd/OGSA_interested_party_survey - http://tinyurl.com/5fxfd/BusinessGrid_draft List of expected responders by F2F meetings 4) OGSA arch v1 document update (30 min) Continue with review of v1 public comments. Last spreadsheet: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/documen/ogsa-v1-public-comment… 5) OGSA glossary update (10 min) Continue with review of glossary public comments. Last summary: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/10/msg00008.html 5) Wrap up (10 min) AOB Dec. 6th: No tele-con (Ravi is not available) Dec. 8th - 10th is F2F meeting in Washington D.C. <pending issues> ?) Process discussion until December F2F (?) Agenda items Design teams' deliverable and schedule Solicit attendees from related WG/RG/TCs https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/200412_draft_agenda_o… e/en/1 ?) Roadmap document review (?) > - Ian had some comments on the revised version and it was decided > that it would be better to have him on the call. The version of the roadmap that came out of the Sept 1st call is on gridforge: http://tinyurl.com/5fxfd/draft-ggf-ogsa-roadmap/en/2 ?) GGF12 Action Items () - Andreas will send out shortly ?) Aug F2F meeting Action Item review (?) Action: Heather to send details on the work WSDM is doing on Events. - Ravi and Andrew would like to be involved in this discussion. > Fred will keep an eye on work progress and inform the group > Andreas to send reminder to Heather again > Done Action: Andrew to check with Data team if producing a set of notes each detailing a decision and its rationale (Architecture (AR) notes) would be appropriate to solve the 'communication' problem (what OGSA-WG has discussed and decided) > - Andrew did not receive a positive or negative response so far > - Andrew to talk with people who brought it up; this will likely > not be before GGF12. Action: Frank to ask Ian for an MDS representative to join the Information Services design team > - Frank asked Ian; waiting for reply; will followup. Action: Jay to talk with Ian and Hiro and form a core design team to work on dependencies at architecture level (roadmap). > - Hiro will contact Jay Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto

2 4

FW: [dais-wg] WSRF Embodiments and DAIS
by Dave Berry 18 Dec '04

18 Dec '04

FYI, the DAIS WG has raised the following issues with the OASIS WSRF group. -----Original Message----- From: Susan Malaika [mailto:malaika@us.ibm.com] Sent: 17 December 2004 10:21 To: dais-wg(a)gridforum.org; wsrf(a)lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [dais-wg] WSRF Embodiments and DAIS The Oasis WSRF group asked the GGF DAIS working group to consider the WSRF "WSDL 1.1 Binding Element Embodiment". An item was posted to the DAIS mailing list entitled "DAIS mapping and WSRF embodiments" on 23 November 2004. There has been discussion among the DAIS community on the use of the WSRF embodiments. Some of the DAIS community involved in the discussions are the implementers of the first open source version of DAIS known as OGSA-DAI; they are the first users of DAIS; they are active in promoting DAIS among data grid communities around the world. These are some interim conclusions: 1. Multiple kinds of DAIS Users It is still not clear if DAIS should mandate WSRF because some of the participants in the DAIS group rely on non-WSRF middleware. DAIS could go some way towards satisfying WSRF and non-WSRF users by placing the resource identifier in the DAIS messages (so a single DAIS message format could be used by both WSRF and non-WSRF DAIS users). A note on resource properties: * Resource properties requests cannot include resource identifiers in the message body. The resource identifier must be placed in the header. A suggestion for the WSRF group : * It would be helpful to know if specifying a resource identifier in the DAIS messages as well as in the header is acceptable to the WSRF folk. 2. Multiple resources in a single request (see below for use cases) Currently, each DAIS service request accesses a single resource, and the resource being accessed determines the underlying resources that should be accessed too, e.g., the exposed single resource can perform resource name mappings . In this case, the WS-Resource concept may (or may not) be used to represent the exposed resources in DAIS. (depending on whether DAIS adopts WSRF) In some proposed extensions and applications of DAIS, multiple resources of different types are accessed through a single service request. It is required that the multiple resources be visible to the client. The WS-Resource concept could be used to represent a collection of resources. An identifier to represent the collection could be placed in the header, while the individual resource identifiers in the collection could appear in the message content. A note on resource properties: * Resource properties requests could result in properties for all the resources in the collection being examined. (see below for alternatives for representing the resource properties documents) A suggestion for the WSRF group : * It would be helpful to know if representing a collection of resources as a WS-Resource is a recommended use of WSRF. 3. WSRF "WSDL 1.1 Binding Element Embodiment" If DAIS does adopt WSRF then the "WSDL 1.1 Binding Element Embodiment" is helpful because it permits a client supplied resource identifier to appear in the message header (in other words the resource identifier is not opaque to the client). However note that there are client side prerequisites for the "WSDL 1.1 Binding Element Embodiment", e.g., the client software would have to know to place the resource identifiers in the right place in the header A suggestion for the WSRF group : * It would be helpful to know if there are any tools that support embodiment "WSDL 1.1 Binding Element Embodiment" ................................................................. Use Cases ......... Here are some use cases for multiple resources in a single request: U1. In an interaction with a DAIS service, many resources may be created to represent the results of requests. There may come a time when several of these resources can safely be removed. In such a setting, the options are to: U1.1. Invoke something like "remove() => EPR representing resource" for each of the resources. U1.2 Invoke something like "remove([EPR representing resource-1, ...,EPR representing resource-n]) => EPR representing service" once. How would option U1.2 be modeled through WSRF? U2. In an interaction with a DAIS service, it may be necessary to aggregate multiple results sets and return the combined result set via ftp. In such a setting, the options are to: U2.1 Invoke something like "ftp (..) => EPR for resource1" for each of the resources and then aggregate the results on the client U2.2 Invoke something like : - "aggregate ([EPR representing resource-1, ...,EPR representing resource-n]) => EPR representing service" - "ftp (..) => EPR representing aggregated resource" (the result aggregation would be done at the server.) How would option U2.2 be modeled through WSRF? (BTW it is possible that a combined aggregate and ftp operation would be desirable) U3. In an interaction with a DAIS service, it may be necessary to issue a query over multiple databases and files. In such a setting, the options are to: U3.1 Invoke something like "query (..) => EPR for resource1" for each of the resources, returning each query result to the client, and then aggregate the results on the client (the result aggregation process could be very complex.) U3.2 Invoke something like "copy (..) => EPR for resource1" for each of the resources and then issue the queries locally on the client (this means having a query engine on the client.) U3.3 Invoke something like "query([EPR representing resource-1, ...,EPR representing resource-n]) => EPR representing service" once (the query result aggregation would be done at the server.) How would option U3.3 be modeled through WSRF? Alternatives for modeling resource properties documents for U1.2, U2.2, U3.3 ........................................................................ ..... <ResourceNames> <ResourceName>resource1</> <ResourceName>resourceX</> </> Or as complex as <Resources> <Resource> <ResourceName>resource1</> <ResourceType>RDB</> <ResourceSchema>....</> </> <Resource> ... </> </> A suggestion for the WSRF group : It would be helpful to know which modeling approach is preferred Thanks to everyone who contributed and reviewed this note. Happy Happy Holiday Season :-) Susan Malaika

1 0

Teleconference minutes - Dec. 15, 2004
by Andreas Savva 16 Dec '04

16 Dec '04

Minutes attached. Gridforge link: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20041215/en/1 or http://tinyurl.com/5fxfd/minutes-20041215/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd.

1 1

Data: date of next telcon
by Dave Berry 13 Dec '04

13 Dec '04

Dear all, I won't be available for the usual telcon slot this week. I doubt we will want to meet during (what is for most of us) the holiday season, so the next telcon will be on Wednesday January 5th. This will be at the usual time: 8.00am (PST) / 11.00am EST / 4.00pm (GMT) / 5.00 pm (CET). UK Dial In: 0845 245 0224 US Dial In: 18668380046 International Dial In: +44 1452 542309 PIN: 632065 (Reference Number: 2361592) Our main need is to progress the straw man architecture. I am setting aside some days in January to work on this. If anyone can progress parts of the straw man before then, the rest of us would be very grateful. Dave Berry Research Manager, National e-Science Centre 15 South College St., Edinburgh Tel: +44 131 6514039

1 0

FW: Revised Naming Document
by Hiro Kishimoto 12 Dec '04

12 Dec '04

Dave's mail bounced. ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Re: [ogsa-wg] Dial-in number for today's f2f session...
by Susan Malaika 10 Dec '04

10 Dec '04

Is there a dial-in for this morning which I assume is covering data? Susan Malaika Jem Treadwell <Jem.Treadwell(a)hp.com>@ggf.org on 12/09/2004 06:16:14 AM Sent by: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org cc: Subject: [ogsa-wg] Dial-in number for today's f2f session... ... is 1-800-480-3702 id 778485# Thanks, - Jem -- Jem Treadwell Hewlett-Packard Company Phone: (732) 577-6043 200 Route 9 North Fax: (732) 577-6003 Manalapan, NJ 07726 E-mail: Jem.Treadwell(a)hp.com

2 1

EGEE Documents
by Steven Newhouse 09 Dec '04

09 Dec '04

All, EGEE have documented their architecture and described their interfaces ... https://edms.cern.ch/document/476451/ - SHORT (70 pages) https://edms.cern.ch/document/487871/ - LONG (300 pages) Enjoy! 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

Info/Links for new Apache WSRF, WSN & WSDM projects
by Jem Treadwell 09 Dec '04

09 Dec '04

Hi, this is some info that I provided at the f2f about about Apache's new Apollo, Hermes and Muse projects, which I hope will be of interest to many of the organizations involved in OGSA. The info below is a digest of the announcements that Ian Springer of HP sent to the OASIS WSDM, WSRF & WSN technical committees on December 2nd. Please pass the information on to anyone else who may be interested within your own organization. Thanks and regards, - Jem The below links provide info on the new Apollo, Hermes and Muse projects at Apache. It's HP's and Globus' hope that other organizations will choose to use and/or contribute to these projects. If you have any questions about the project, please post to the appropriate mailing lists, as detailed below (subscription required). Thanks! --Ian Springer, senior software engineer, HP Overview of Apollo, Hermes, and Muse Projects ============================================= o Presentation: http://incubator.apache.org/muse/apollo-hermes-muse_overview.ppt o Roadmap: http://incubator.apache.org/muse/apollo-hermes-muse_roadmap.txt Apollo Project Info =================== o Web Site: http://incubator.apache.org/apollo/ o Mailing List: apollo-dev(a)ws.apache.org - Subscribe: send blank email to: apollo-dev-subscribe(a)ws.apache.org - Archive: http://ws.apache.org/mail/apollo-dev/ o SVN Repo: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/apollo/ o Issue Tracking: http://nagoya.apache.org/jira/browse/Apollo o Chat Room: #apache-ws-fx (on irc.freenode.net) o Incubator Project Proposal: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApolloProposal o Incubation Status Tracking Page: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/apollo.html o Mentor: Davanum Srinivas - WS PMC chair, ASF member * dims(a)apache.org, dims(a)yahoo.com * http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/ <http://webservices.apache.org/%7Edims/>, http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/ Hermes Project Info =================== o Web Site: http://incubator.apache.org/hermes/ o Mailing List: hermes-dev(a)ws.apache.org - Subscribe: send blank email to: hermes-dev-subscribe(a)ws.apache.org - Archive: http://ws.apache.org/mail/hermes-dev/ o SVN Repo: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/hermes/ o Issue Tracking: http://nagoya.apache.org/jira/browse/Hermes o Chat Room: #apache-ws-fx (on irc.freenode.net) o Incubator Project Proposal: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/HermesProposal o Incubation Status Tracking Page: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/hermes.html o Mentor: Davanum Srinivas - WS PMC chair, ASF member * dims(a)apache.org, dims(a)yahoo.com * http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/ <http://webservices.apache.org/%7Edims/>, http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/ Muse Project Info ================= o Web Site: http://incubator.apache.org/muse/ o Mailing List: muse-dev(a)ws.apache.org - Subscribe: send blank email to: muse-dev-subscribe(a)ws.apache.org - Archive: http://ws.apache.org/mail/muse-dev/ o SVN Repo: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/muse/ o Issue Tracking: http://nagoya.apache.org/jira/browse/Muse o Chat Room: #apache-ws-fx (on irc.freenode.net) o Incubator Project Proposal: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/MuseProposal o Incubation Status Tracking Page: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/muse.html o Mentor: Davanum Srinivas - WS PMC chair, ASF member * dims(a)apache.org, dims(a)yahoo.com * http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/ <http://webservices.apache.org/%7Edims/>, http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/ General Apache Incubator Info ============================= o Web Site: http://incubator.apache.org/ o SVN Repo: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/ o Wiki: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator General Apache WS Project Info ============================== o Web Site: http://ws.apache.org/ o Web Site CVS: http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/ws-site/ o Mailing List: general(a)ws.apache.org (general-subscribe(a)ws.apache.org) o IRC: #apache-ws (on irc.freenode.net) o Wiki: http://wiki.apache.org/ws/ -- Jem Treadwell Hewlett-Packard Company Phone: (732) 577-6043 200 Route 9 North Fax: (732) 577-6003 Manalapan, NJ 07726 E-mail: Jem.Treadwell(a)hp.com

1 0

GT4 monitoring and discovery services
by Ian Foster 09 Dec '04

09 Dec '04

The topic arose yesterday of what we're doing in GT4 for monitoring and discovery. I enclose a summary. What I find neat about this is that the WSRF/WSN mechanisms make this come out really nicely.

1 0

On the subject of profiles...
by Steven Newhouse 09 Dec '04

09 Dec '04

Could I draw your attention to some work that went on in the UK over the summer on profiling the web service specifications to build web service grids. http://www.omii.ac.uk/web_service_grids.htm 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

Dial-in number for today's f2f session...
by Jem Treadwell 09 Dec '04

09 Dec '04

... is 1-800-480-3702 id 778485# Thanks, - Jem -- Jem Treadwell Hewlett-Packard Company Phone: (732) 577-6043 200 Route 9 North Fax: (732) 577-6003 Manalapan, NJ 07726 E-mail: Jem.Treadwell(a)hp.com

1 0

Re: [ogsa-wg] Start tomorrow @ 8am
by Susan Malaika 09 Dec '04

09 Dec '04

When can we call in to get an update? (The callin number says it is restricted at this time) Susan Malaika

1 0

FW: gf-chairs GGF13 News
by Hiro Kishimoto 09 Dec '04

09 Dec '04

Hi all, GGF asks us about our plan for GGF13. Let's put it into F2F meeting agenda and write up initial plan on Friday or Thursday. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

PURSE
by Ian Foster 09 Dec '04

09 Dec '04

I was also asked for information about PURSE (portal based user registration service) today, here is a doc that has some details. Ian.

1 0

Start tomorrow @ 8am
by Ian Foster 09 Dec '04

09 Dec '04

Hiro asks me to remind us all that we start tomorrow at 8am. Ian. _______________________________________________________________ Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 Globus Alliance, www.globus.org

1 0

Glossary working draft
by Jem Treadwell 09 Dec '04

09 Dec '04

Hi, as promised at today's f2f session, here's the current working draft of the OGSA V1 Glossary. I think I have all of the changes agreed so far incorporated, although I still have to make a final check. There are a couple of highlighted areas where the final wording has yet to be agreed, and I'm still waiting for input on a couple of other areas. I also have yet to respond to the comments. Once all changes are made I'll provide a copy for final review. If you have any comments, please let me know, but bear in mind that these changes are being made for v1, and in response to the comments received during the public comment period. Changes outside that scope will need to be made for v2; any input for that is welcome. Thanks, - Jem -- Jem Treadwell Hewlett-Packard Company Phone: (732) 577-6043 200 Route 9 North Fax: (732) 577-6003 Manalapan, NJ 07726 E-mail: Jem.Treadwell(a)hp.com

1 0

JSDL spec and schema links
by Andreas Savva 08 Dec '04

08 Dec '04

For those who expressed interest to have a look at the JSDL specification: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/jsdl-wg/document/draft-ggf-jsdl-spec/en /11 and the schema https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/jsdl-wg/document/jsdl.xsd/en/3 The schema and the spec may be slightly out of sync. (The schema included in the spec is one step behind what's on gridforge.) Comments welcome. -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd

1 0

Defining the Open Grid Services Architecture
by Hiro Kishimoto 07 Dec '04

07 Dec '04

Hi all, The attached document is intended to provide a basis for further discussing on some important issues within the OGSA document. The session is planed to hold Thursday morning. OGSA-WG co-chairs, ADs, and GGF chair have written down it. However in some cases this document, due to its genesis, contains contradictions. Please feel free to propose further changes or issues associated with this discussion. See you in Washington D.C. very soon. ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Re: [ogsa-wg] effective use of resource lifetimes in grid infrastructure
by Hiro Kishimoto 06 Dec '04

06 Dec '04

Steve's email bounced. ---- Hiro Kishimoto Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] effective use of resource lifetimes in grid infrastructure Cc: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org To: Steve Loughran <steve_loughran(a)hpl.hp.com> From: Steve Tuecke <tuecke(a)mcs.anl.gov> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 09:52:17 -0600 Steve, The ManagedJob WS-Resource need not be hosted on the same host as the job itself. Here's a draft document that you might find useful that describes the GT4 WS GRAM approach in more detail: http://www-unix.globus.org/toolkit/docs/development/3.9.3/execution/ wsgram/WS_GRAM_Approach.html -Steve On Dec 6, 2004, at 7:12 AM, Steve Loughran wrote: > Ian Foster wrote: >> Steve: >> A variety of semantics and connections are possible between a >> "WS-Resource" and an "entity that the WS-Resource repesents", >> including both your (a) and (b) below. I don't believe that the >> implied resource pattern implies that one particular approach be >> adopted. >> The following are some rough notes on how we have chosen to handle >> things in the GT4 GRAM service. This may perhaps be relevant to your >> problem. >> The approach that we take in GT4 GRAM is as follows: >> 1) A GRAM ManagedJobFactory defines a "create job" operation that: >> a) creates a job, and also >> b) creates a ManagedJob WS-Resource, which represents the resource >> manager's view of the job. >> 2) The ManagedJob WS-Resource and the job are then linked as follows: >> a) Destroying the ManagedJob WS-Resource kills the job >> b) State changes in the job are reflected in the ManagedJob >> WS-Resource >> c) Termination of the job also destroys the ManagedJob WS-Resource, >> but not immediately: we find that you typically want to leave the >> managedjob state around for "a while" after the job terminates to >> allow clients to figure out what happened to the job after the fact >> Regards -- Ian. > > Ian, > > What is your fault tolerance strategy here? > > Is every ManagedJob WS-Resource hosted on the same host (and perhaps, > same process) as the job itself? > > This would mean that there is no way for the managedjob EPR to fail > without the job itself failing, but would require the entire set of > job hosts to be visible for inbound SOAP messages. And prevent you > moving a job from one node to another without some difficultly (the > classic CORBA object-moved problem, I believe, though HTTP 304 > responses would work if only SOAP stacks processed them reliably) > > I am trying to do a design which would enable (though would not > require) only a subset of nodes -call them portal nodes- to be visible > to outside callers, with the rest of the nodes only accessible to the > portal itself. Once I assume this architecture, modelling the > resources gets complex, as EPRs contain routing info that may become > invalid if a portal node fails. > > -steve > > >

1 0

effective use of resource lifetimes in grid infrastructure
by Steve Loughran 06 Dec '04

06 Dec '04

Hello, I am trying to design the CDDLM deployment API in the WS-RF style, and am having problems with understanding the best way to make effective use of resource lifetimes in a fault-tolerant environment. I would like some assistance : Scenario ======== -We are supporting automated deployment of applications to allocated resources. -Applications are deployed through a deployment portal; the applications may deployed on hosts that are not running the services necessary for direct communication, or behind a firewall. -The deployment portal is in a DMZ or otherwise reachable by all callers. All EPRs must therefore refer to the portal. I had originally envisaged that to destroy an application,a <wsrl:Destroy/> call could be made. Yet I have a problem. I want to be fault tolerant without relying on load balancing routers, round-robin DNS or mDNS hostnames. In the stateful resources pattern, I can have EPRs that contain policy on how to renew an EPR. Presumably that would list a service group location from whence any other deployment portal EPR could be found that could renew an invalid EPR for us (e.g. by extracting application identification info and constructing a new EPR referring to the local portal) This all seems workable, ignoring the problem of specifying the policy of updating EPRs. Presumably we'd have to do an app specific algorithm and policy. What is causing me trouble is resource lifetimes. Once I have a world in which you can have multiple EPRs all referring to the same resource, the same deployed application, what does that mean for WS-ResourceLifetime? If I have multiple, different EPRs, is it right that a <wsrl:Destroy/> call on one of them should terminate the final application? What if there was state on each portal related to the EPR that needed cleaning up at the end of a conversation, and so required either that destroy call, or timeout-initiated destruction? I think the problem here is "what should I be modelling with the implicit resource pattern"? . Is it:- (a) the resource in question *is* the application. When the resource is destroyed, so is the application. (b) the resource in question is merely a view of the application. When the resource is destroyed, the view goes away, but the application remains until destroyed by some other means. -Steve

2 3

RE: Survey template v06
by Hiro Kishimoto 06 Dec '04

06 Dec '04

Hi all, Andreas and I revised the survey template and its example answer. If you have assigned to response to this survey at the upcoming F2F meeting, please get to work on. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto > -----Original Message----- > From: Hiro Kishimoto [mailto:hiro.kishimoto@jp.fujitsu.com] > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 9:06 PM > To: 'ogsa-wg' > Subject: RE: Survey template (RE: [ogsa-wg] Proposed agenda for Nov. 24th call) > > Hi all, > > At the last Wednesday call, I've got homework assignment to revise > survey template based on the useful comments at the call. Attached file > is a revised survey template (rev. 05) and corresponding Business Grid > answer example. > > Thank you very much for your valuable comments, they are far better > than the first one. > > As usual, they are also in the GridForge: > http://tinyurl.com/5fxfd/OGSA_interested_party_survey > http://tinyurl.com/5fxfd/BusinessGrid_draft > > Thanks, > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Hiro > > Kishimoto > > Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 6:28 PM > > To: 'ogsa-wg' > > Subject: Survey template (RE: [ogsa-wg] Proposed agenda for Nov. 24th call) > > > > Hi all, > > > > > 2) Interested party list discussion (30 min) > > > For both our roadmap and v1 document, we should list up key > > > stakeholders including WG/RG/TCs, grid projects, venders. > > > Identify their interest (high level arch - actual spec - > > implementation) > > > and involvement to OGSA activity. > > > Hiro will send out draft survey template before the call. > > > > Please find draft template for interested party survey. > > I also included first draft of Business Grid as an example. > > > > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa- > wg/document/OGSA_interested_party_surv > > ey/en/1 > > > > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/BusinessGrid_draft/en… > > > > Thanks, > > ---- > > Hiro Kishimoto

2 2

NO OGSA call on Dec. 6th
by Hiro Kishimoto 06 Dec '04

06 Dec '04

Hi all, Since we will have a three day F2F meeting in Washington D.C., we do not have a regular Monday call on Dec. 6th. Have a safe trip and see you very soon, ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Data: Minutes of the telcon on 1st December
by Dave Berry 03 Dec '04

03 Dec '04

Dear all, I attach the minutes for the telcon on 1st December, which you can also find on GridForge at: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/Minutes_1st_Decemb er_2004/en/1. I have still to confirm the date of the next telcon. Dave Berry Research Manager, National e-Science Centre 15 South College St., Edinburgh Tel: +44 131 6514039

1 0

Naming: ARK identifiers?
by Dave Berry 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

For the naming team, Have you looked at the ARK naming scheme from J Kunze? There is an IETF draft describing this: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kunze-ark-08.txt. ARK identifiers have the form [http://NMAH/]ark:/NAAN/Name. The NAAN/Name part seems very similar to the Handle system. The optional NMAH part defines a service that can resolve the name. The ARK scheme proposes that naming authorities commit to (and make explicit) a policy for the persistence of the object. By the way, what is it about the Handle system that doesn't satisfy the uniqueness property (c.f. the comparison spreadsheet)? Dave. -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Grimshaw [mailto:grimshaw@virginia.edu] Sent: 29 November 2004 18:23 To: 'Hiro Kishimoto'; 'ogsa-wg' Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] naming service design team call on Nov 29th I have not had a chance to write the revised document. We can however, discuss the one item we punted on - names and authentication. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 2:15 AM To: 'ogsa-wg' Subject: [ogsa-wg] naming service design team call on Nov 29th Hi all, We will have an name service design team call on Nov. 29th Monday from 5pm to 7pm (CST). Andrew will send out revised naming document before the call. He will lead security aspect discussion with Frank, our security guru. The dial-in number for Monday; Free: +1-866-639-4741 Toll: +1-574-935-6703 PIN: 8980700 Screen share service will be provided. URL: http://hiro.glance.net Session key: 1129 See more explanation: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html Previous calls minutes: (Nov. 15) Mark has uploaded the previous meeting minutes. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/naming-minutes-200 4111 5/en /1 Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0