RE: [ogsa-wg] FINAL CALL: OGSA 1.5 Architecture and Glossary
Hi David, I see what you are saying and I did consider that. The glossary term implied a "many to one" or "one to one" situation - one provider. What I was suggesting is a "one to many" situation which is very likely. So the situation where you have multiple providers accepting to an agreement (which at a higher level may be a single contract between domains) is still a "one to many" situation that the glossary term should cover. Right? Ravi -----Original Message----- From: David Snelling [mailto:David.Snelling@UK.Fujitsu.com] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 4:14 AM To: Subramaniam, Ravi Cc: Andreas Savva; ogsa-wg Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] FINAL CALL: OGSA 1.5 Architecture and Glossary Ravi, I think I would be happiest to leave this as a single bi-partite relationship. We have looked at this a lot in NextGRID, and even complex contracts (such as an EU project) actually boil down legally to a collection of contracts between two organizations, although they all sign a single document. On 12 Jul 2006, at 23:01, Subramaniam, Ravi wrote:
Hi Jem/Andreas,
A quick comment: In the glossary#Agreement why is the object of the relationship the delivery of a service by *only one* of the parties? Couldn't it be "one or more" since there can be alternates for the same service, multipart agreements or aggregated services? It is possible that GRAAP choose the single party to simplify the management of agreements but this case is a subset of what the term can represent. Agree?
Thanks!
Ravi
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Savva Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 8:49 PM To: 'ogsa-wg' Subject: [ogsa-wg] FINAL CALL: OGSA 1.5 Architecture and Glossary
Final drafts of the OGSA 1.5 documents ([Arch] and [Glossary]) are available on Gridforge. These drafts were updated according to comments received and subsequent teleconference reviews. The drafts are change-tracked relative to the previous draft versions.
Please comment on the list, this Thursday's call, or at the F2F next week. The plan is to submit back to the GGF Editor *after the end of the Interim Meeting next week, July 20 (Thursday).*
[Arch] https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc13553?nav=1
[Glossary] https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc13555?nav=1
-- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd
-- 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)
On Jul 13, Subramaniam, Ravi modulated:
Hi David,
I see what you are saying and I did consider that. The glossary term implied a "many to one" or "one to one" situation - one provider. What I was suggesting is a "one to many" situation which is very likely. So the situation where you have multiple providers accepting to an agreement (which at a higher level may be a single contract between domains) is still a "one to many" situation that the glossary term should cover. Right?
Ravi
If you want to be general, I think the agreement should be BETWEEN two parties (i.e. the legally bound parties) but REGARDING multiple services, some of which may be provided (directly or indirectly) by either party. I also think the important thing is to realize that the services must be described clearly in terms of domain-specific operating constraints, including the roles/responsibilities of the agreeing parties. It is folly to try to state these roles in general about the agreement parties in isolation from the service-specific models. The idea of who is the "producer" and the "consumer" is really domain-specific and there are plenty of cases where you have to stand on your head and count backwards to even make such a distinction. (For example, with peering arrangements: you would have to factor out the peering "service" into separate parts where you look at each part as a directed provider/consumer aspect of the overall service.) karl -- Karl Czajkowski karlcz@univa.com
Karl, On 14 Jul 2006, at 06:22, Karl Czajkowski wrote:
On Jul 13, Subramaniam, Ravi modulated:
Hi David,
I see what you are saying and I did consider that. The glossary term implied a "many to one" or "one to one" situation - one provider. What I was suggesting is a "one to many" situation which is very likely. So the situation where you have multiple providers accepting to an agreement (which at a higher level may be a single contract between domains) is still a "one to many" situation that the glossary term should cover. Right?
Ravi
If you want to be general, I think the agreement should be BETWEEN two parties (i.e. the legally bound parties) but REGARDING multiple services, some of which may be provided (directly or indirectly) by either party.
+1, but all services involved must be referenced in the agreement.
I also think the important thing is to realize that the services must be described clearly in terms of domain-specific operating constraints, including the roles/responsibilities of the agreeing parties. It is folly to try to state these roles in general about the agreement parties in isolation from the service-specific models.
The idea of who is the "producer" and the "consumer" is really domain-specific and there are plenty of cases where you have to stand on your head and count backwards to even make such a distinction. (For example, with peering arrangements: you would have to factor out the peering "service" into separate parts where you look at each part as a directed provider/consumer aspect of the overall service.)
The idea of having a producer/consumer, while common, is really not general enough. In an agreement both parties have obligations and both provide some form of service. Even if money is involved, that can flow in both directions, penalties. I believe the relationship should be 100% symmetric. I would alter the definition as below, but I'm ok with it as is. An agreement defines a dynamically-established and dynamically- managed relationship between two parties. The object of the relationship is the exchange of services between the parties within the context of the agreement. The management of this relationship is achieved by agreeing on the respective roles, rights and obligations of the parties. The agreement may specify not only functional properties for identification or creation of services, but also non- functional properties of the services such as performance or availability. Entities can dynamically establish and manage agreements via Web service interfaces. See https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/graap-wg for information about work being carried out by the OGF’s Grid Resource Allocation Agreement Protocol (GRAAP) working group.
karl
-- Karl Czajkowski karlcz@univa.com
-- 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)
participants (3)
-
David Snelling -
Karl Czajkowski -
Subramaniam, Ravi