Re: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards'
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
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 people working on 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 these details. The 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 precise in the definition of these behavior patterns requires a 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
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. At 10:23 PM 2/28/2005 -0500, Dennis Gannon wrote:
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 people working on 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 these details. The 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 precise in the definition of these behavior patterns requires a 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
So... if ws-transfer and ws-properties are sets of conventions that do essentially the same thing, then it's actually a great compliment to ogsa's choice of wsrf that MS decided that it needs a similar functionality! Do I understand that Tony essentially asks the OGSA-WG to come up with an additional abstraction layer that allows one to model the usage patterns such that it can map to either wsrf or ws-transfer implementations? ...but if we model the usage patterns with wsrf, and wsrf and ws-transfer are doing conceptually the same thing, isn't the ogsa-wg doing just that: it uses an abstraction that can be used to describe the relevant usage patterns without losing any generality. The idea of inventing "yet an other abstraction layer" doesn't sound very productive. -Frank. 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.
At 10:23 PM 2/28/2005 -0500, Dennis Gannon wrote:
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 people working on 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 these details. The 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 precise in the definition of these behavior patterns requires a 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 <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/>
-- Frank Siebenlist franks@mcs.anl.gov The Globus Alliance - Argonne National Laboratory
Frank, I like the way you put this: On 1 Mar 2005, at 7:08, Frank Siebenlist wrote:
...but if we model the usage patterns with wsrf, and wsrf and ws-transfer are doing conceptually the same thing, isn't the ogsa-wg doing just that: it uses an abstraction that can be used to describe the relevant usage patterns without losing any generality.
I full agree. I think a very interesting study, for starters, would be to implement the WSRF Resource Properties interfaces (in other words - the OGSA Abstraction Layer for State Access) in terms of WS-Transfer. The reverse is already possible in WSRF-RP trough the GetResourcePropertyDocument (equivalent to the WS-Transfer GET). I'm sure the rest of the lowest OGSA abstraction layers maps to other infrastructures just as easily.
The idea of inventing "yet an other abstraction layer" doesn't sound very productive.
Agreed. But now that this lowest layer is well established, higher level services need to be constructed, e.g. for data access, job submission and management, .... These higher levels will be more isolated from the lower level details, but much simpler to construct given that these lower layers are in place. -- Take care: Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com > Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Hayes Park Central Hayes End Road Hayes, Middlesex UB4 8FE +44-208-606-4649 (Office) +44-208-606-4539 (Fax) +44-7768-807526 (Mobile)
yes! thank you david. i agree. On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, David Snelling wrote:
The idea of inventing "yet an other abstraction layer" doesn't sound very productive.
Agreed. But now that this lowest layer is well established, higher level services need to be constructed, e.g. for data access, job submission and management, .... These higher levels will be more isolated from the lower level details, but much simpler to construct given that these lower layers are in place.
+1 to Dave and Frank Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. – Antoine de Saint-Exupery T o m M a g u i r e STSM, On Demand Architecture Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 David Snelling <David.Snelling@U K.Fujitsu.com> To Sent by: Frank Siebenlist owner-ogsa-wg@ggf <franks@mcs.anl.gov> .org cc Ian Foster <foster@mcs.anl.gov>, Dennis Gannon 03/01/2005 05:36 <gannon@cs.indiana.edu>, Samuel AM Meder <meder@mcs.anl.gov>, ogsa-wg <ogsa-wg@gridforum.org>, Tony Hey <tony.hey@epsrc.ac.uk> Subject Re: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards' Frank, I like the way you put this: On 1 Mar 2005, at 7:08, Frank Siebenlist wrote:
...but if we model the usage patterns with wsrf, and wsrf and ws-transfer are doing conceptually the same thing, isn't the ogsa-wg doing just that: it uses an abstraction that can be used to describe the relevant usage patterns without losing any generality.
I full agree. I think a very interesting study, for starters, would be to implement the WSRF Resource Properties interfaces (in other words - the OGSA Abstraction Layer for State Access) in terms of WS-Transfer. The reverse is already possible in WSRF-RP trough the GetResourcePropertyDocument (equivalent to the WS-Transfer GET). I'm sure the rest of the lowest OGSA abstraction layers maps to other infrastructures just as easily.
The idea of inventing "yet an other abstraction layer" doesn't sound very productive.
Agreed. But now that this lowest layer is well established, higher level services need to be constructed, e.g. for data access, job submission and management, .... These higher levels will be more isolated from the lower level details, but much simpler to construct given that these lower layers are in place. -- Take care: Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com > Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Hayes Park Central Hayes End Road Hayes, Middlesex UB4 8FE +44-208-606-4649 (Office) +44-208-606-4539 (Fax) +44-7768-807526 (Mobile)
The idea of inventing "yet an other abstraction layer" doesn't sound very productive.
Neither does the idea of re-writing my application code interface when WS-RF 2.0 comes out, or something else gets adopted by another community, or... Just imagine where the parallel computing world would still be if we where still exposed to machine specific networking stacks instead of MPI? Layers of abstraction are (within reason) good. Also you are seeing caution in the UK. Remember OGSI...? The UK put in considerable effort to adopt the 'betamax' of grid web service. Are we now being offered VHS grid web services? Or will there be another Betamax type revision? I'm finding some of the comments in this thread (not Frank's) are bit worrying. Should dissenters really be given a 'good talking to' until they come round to the WS-RF point of view? Wow... roll on GGF! Steven -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Steven Newhouse Tel:+44 (0)2380 598789 Deputy Director, Open Middleware Infrastructure Institute (OMII) Suite 6005, Faraday Building (B21), Highfield Campus, Southampton University, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
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.
At 10:23 PM 2/28/2005 -0500, Dennis Gannon wrote:
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 people working on 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 these details. The 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 precise in the definition of these behavior patterns requires a 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
participants (7)
-
David Snelling -
Dennis Gannon -
Frank Siebenlist -
Ian Foster -
Samuel Meder -
Steven Newhouse -
Tom Maguire