Marty's email bounced. ---- Hiro Kishimoto From: "Marty Humphrey" <humphrey@cs.virginia.edu> To: "'Mark Morgan'" <mmm2a@virginia.edu>, <daveb@nesc.ac.uk>, <gannon@cs.indiana.edu>, <foster@mcs.anl.gov> Cc: <meder@mcs.anl.gov>, <ogsa-wg@gridforum.org>, <tony.hey@epsrc.ac.uk>, "'Marty Humphrey'" <humphrey@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@ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Mark Morgan Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 12:10 PM To: daveb@nesc.ac.uk; gannon@cs.indiana.edu; foster@mcs.anl.gov Cc: meder@mcs.anl.gov; ogsa-wg@gridforum.org; tony.hey@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@virginia.edu (434) 982-2790
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg@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@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.
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
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
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
the definition of these behavior patterns requires a
At 10:23 PM 2/28/2005 -0500, Dennis Gannon wrote: people working on these details. The precise in 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 >