Mark McKeown wrote:
Hi Donal,
Regarding Chris's desire to be able to pass the LSF jobid back to the client somehow - it could be included in the EPR's Metdata, possibly RDF could be used to mark up the Metadata to indicate that it is a LSF jobid. In this way the Address IRI can be kept opaque.
That would seem to me to be needless disambiguation. Surely it is just up to the service that mints the abstract name to understand it; there is no inherent need for it to explain what that means to anyone else.
I am not sure I understand your comment - you don't seem to be disagreeing with me...
Frank wants to use the EPR's wsa:Address IRI as an AbstractName, Chris wants to send a LSF jobid to the client and the W3C recommends that IRIs should be opaque. One way to include the LSF jobid in the EPR is to embed it into the wsa:Address IRI, this might help make it unique and the client could extract it from the IRI - however the W3C recommends that IRIs should be opaque.
Well, I also believe that it's better to keep the IRIs opaque and was suggesting to use the complete IRI itself as an alternative jobId. Whether that could work depends on the use cases we have to consider... -Frank. -- Frank Siebenlist franks@mcs.anl.gov The Globus Alliance - Argonne National Laboratory