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@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