So just to get some nomenclature correct. By WS-Names we mean an EPR that is profiled to contain both a ResolverEPR and an AbstractName. So what do we call an EPR which just contains a ResolverEPR?
Tom
Ian Foster wrote:
I believe that the opinion was expressed by some at the San Diego meeting (e.g., by Steve Tuecke) that WS-Names should NOT be mandated.
It certainly defines a nice way of using EPRs that will be useful in some situations. But it surely can't be the case that we always want to mandate this particular set of extensions to EPRs. That requirement certainly doesn't jibe with how we use them in all cases, for example.
Ian.
At 09:25 AM 8/29/2005 -0400, Andrew Grimshaw wrote:
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
Ian, I wonder whether you or one of your team could write a note about the background to your proposals? It would help me to understand how they fit into the wider architecture. At present I don't feel able to make an informed contribution to the discussion. The current shape of OGSA (if I can call it "current" without biasing the discussion) has three concepts relevant to this discussion: 1. Three levels of naming (human-oriented, abstract, and address). 2. An implementation of abstract names as an EPR containing a string and a resolver. 3. A service interface for BES that takes abstract names as parameters. Each has associated questions raised by your concerns: 1. Do you want to have fewer levels of naming across the architecture or are you happy with the three listed here? 2a. Are you happy that abstract names should be represented in this way? 2b. What would a "resolver without an abstract name" resolve? When do you need it in addition to or instead of an abstract name? Does it fulfill a different function or is there some overlap? 3. What should the BES interface accept instead of or as well as abstract names? When do you need this functionality? How should the interface cope with the different types of entity? I can make a guess at part of these answers but I'd rather read an explanation from the horse's mouth. Best wishes, Dave. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Foster Sent: 30 August 2005 04:02 To: Tom Maguire Cc: Andrew Grimshaw; ogsa-wg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] BES query I'm interested in that question too. As I've said on quite a few occasions, I like the EPR + ResolverEPR (as in the original WS-RenewableReferences) -- that is a nice simple mechanism. I don't understand why we can't have this in a separate specification. Ian. At 09:23 PM 8/29/2005 -0400, Tom Maguire wrote: the
various function calls. There was the question as to whether EPRs 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
_______________________________________________________________ Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster <http://www.mcs.anl.gov/%7Efoster> 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 <http://www.globus.org/>
_______________________________________________________________ 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
participants (1)
-
Dave Berry