Personally, I view naming as an important part of the basic nature of a Grid. OGSA has already bought into the story that a 3-tiered naming structure is an important part of a workable grid solution. Given that WS-Names represent the lower two levels of this hierarchy, it seems that anything but full endorsement of WS-Names as the OGSA way of handling resiliant, location transparent, names for grid resources would weaken the story that OGSA has to tell. In my personal opinion, I think it's very important that OGSA endorse WS-Names as a core requirement for usable grid resources. Otherwise, various legitimate implementations of OGSA services will provide varying levels of reliability and accessability which will make programming grid applications very difficult. -Mark
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Grimshaw Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 9:26 AM To: ogsa-wg@ggf.org Subject: [ogsa-wg] BES query
All,
In the BES working group call last week the issue of naming came up. The current DRAFT specification calls for passing WS-Names in and out of the various function calls. There was the question as to whether EPR's is all that should be specified. We thought this is an OGSA issue: mainly is OGSA endorsing the use of WS-Names where appropriate. Clearly I think we should. But this should be discussed.
Andrew