In ther OGSA Data Architecture document we suggest that URI's are needed to name transport protocols, access interfaces, and query languages. I would be surprised if this list were exhaustive. ByteIO, of course, have made a start on naming SOAP transport protocols (SwA, MTOM and DIME). Dave. -----Original Message----- From: ogsa-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Andre Merzky Sent: 30 August 2007 12:01 To: Michel Drescher Cc: OGSA-DMI ML; OGSA-WG Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA/OGF URI for non-bound or non-functional EPRs Hi Michel, Quoting [Michel Drescher] (Aug 30 2007):
Folks,
- apologies for cross-posting -
[...]
Also, while we were discussing this matter on the last DMI call, we came up with the idea whether it is feasible to pull together a couple
of interested people and create an OGF Community Practice document that may be based on GFD.84: "Standardised Namespaces for XML infosets in OGF" (http://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.84.pdf) and defines, at an OGF level, standardized URIs for things such as - non-bound EPRs (as discussed) - Data transport protocol identifies (GridFTP, HTTP, FTP, SRB, RFT, ...) - ...
Any ideas or comments?
The SAGA groups would happily consume such a document - at the moment, we leave all these specification to either the implementors or (worse) to the end users, and are not satisfied with that solution. Cheers, Andre.
Cheers, Michel -- "XML is like violence: if it does not help, use more."
-- ogsa-wg mailing list ogsa-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-wg