Hi Ian, Thank you for your excellent and thoughtful document! Yes, we have had a very related discussion at the meeting yesterday. We've discussed that BES defines subset of your 8 operation (1, 2, 7, and 8). Please remember BES is for Container not for Job Manager. The climate of the meeting is "container (factory) interface only, no job interface." And the reason is operation 2 and 7 are already specified in WSRF. However, I still wondering the following two issues; (1) Even though interface is already defined in the WSRF, don't we need to define domain-specific semantics and behavior (e.g. job destroy means soft kill). (2) Given that Job Manager defines Job interface explained in Ian's document, combination of Job Manager and Container introduces unexpected complexity in EMS architecture? (Job itself has its own interface in the context of Job Manager but has no interface in the context of container). Your thoughts? ---- Hiro Kishimoto -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Foster Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 7:37 AM To: ogsa-wg; OGSA-BES-bof@ggf.org Subject: [ogsa-wg] Perhaps useful input to BES discussion Dear All: I am sending this draft document in case it is relevant to the OGSA-WG and/or BES discussions. In this document, I use a simple example (a skeleton execution service) to compare and contrast four approaches to representing state, namely WSRF, WS-Transfer, REST, and "state id." I haven't sent this earlier because I'd hoped to integrate numerous comments that I've received from Savas and others. I hope to do so in the next week or two, but perhaps this draft is still of interest. Regards -- 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