- 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