All, Steve McGough and I were asked to prepare a discussion around workflow for the telecom tomorrow. Attached is a short slide deck and some XML examples - to be explained during the call. I have another meeting in which I am presenting that runs from 7-9 am eastern, so will miss the opening of the OGSA call. If for some reason I am late, Mark can present. A Andrew Grimshaw Professor of Computer Science University of Virginia 434-982-2204 grimshaw@cs.virginia.edu
Andrew,
Steve McGough and I were asked to prepare a discussion around workflow for the telecom tomorrow. Attached is a short slide deck and some XML examples – to be explained during the call.
My apologies - I will not be able to join the call today. From the slides it appears that we are talking about doing a new workflow language. This is fine in the spirit of doing a clean room analysis of requirements but I am very concerned that OGSA does not look at developing any new specifications until it has determined why existing established specifications (and their various extensibility options) are not viable. Steven -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Steven Newhouse Mob:+44(0)7920489420 Tel:+44(0)23 80598789 Director, Open Middleware Infrastructure Institute-UK (OMII-UK) c/o Suite 6005, Faraday Building (B21), Highfield Campus, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
Steven, I agree. If you look at the slide deck one of the "issues" is the large body of existing work - much of it very good; and much of it more complete than we would want to endorse (e.g., it comes complete with a GIU, security model, ....) There is the further complication of choosing an existing system - the political and market battles that might ensue. The question before us is - 1) adopt something existing, or 2) gather best practices and generate some sort of simple least common denominator a la JSDL, or 3) try and design by committee a complete package. I personally think (2) is the best choice :-). In any case there will need to be much examining of what is there as well as requirements generation (presumably from use cases.) By the way we were NOT proposing the XML stuff we sent as a "standard" - rather a sketch of the level of detail we might want to address. A
-----Original Message----- From: Steven Newhouse [mailto:s.newhouse@omii.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 8:28 AM To: Andrew Grimshaw Cc: ogsa-wg@gridforum.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Materials for tomorrows call
Andrew,
Steve McGough and I were asked to prepare a discussion around workflow for the telecom tomorrow. Attached is a short slide deck and some XML examples - to be explained during the call.
My apologies - I will not be able to join the call today. From the slides it appears that we are talking about doing a new workflow language.
This is fine in the spirit of doing a clean room analysis of requirements but I am very concerned that OGSA does not look at developing any new specifications until it has determined why existing established specifications (and their various extensibility options) are not viable.
Steven -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Steven Newhouse Mob:+44(0)7920489420 Tel:+44(0)23 80598789 Director, Open Middleware Infrastructure Institute-UK (OMII-UK) c/o Suite 6005, Faraday Building (B21), Highfield Campus, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
Andrew: There is also the option of not doing anything: i.e., assume that people will use many different systems (BPEL, certainly, but many others), and just make sure that OGSA addresses what is needed for them to operate. Ian. Andrew Grimshaw wrote:
Steven, I agree. If you look at the slide deck one of the "issues" is the large body of existing work - much of it very good; and much of it more complete than we would want to endorse (e.g., it comes complete with a GIU, security model, ....) There is the further complication of choosing an existing system - the political and market battles that might ensue. The question before us is - 1) adopt something existing, or 2) gather best practices and generate some sort of simple least common denominator a la JSDL, or 3) try and design by committee a complete package.
I personally think (2) is the best choice :-). In any case there will need to be much examining of what is there as well as requirements generation (presumably from use cases.)
By the way we were NOT proposing the XML stuff we sent as a "standard" - rather a sketch of the level of detail we might want to address.
A
-----Original Message----- From: Steven Newhouse [mailto:s.newhouse@omii.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 8:28 AM To: Andrew Grimshaw Cc: ogsa-wg@gridforum.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Materials for tomorrows call
Andrew,
Steve McGough and I were asked to prepare a discussion around workflow for the telecom tomorrow. Attached is a short slide deck and some XML examples - to be explained during the call.
My apologies - I will not be able to join the call today. From the slides it appears that we are talking about doing a new workflow language.
This is fine in the spirit of doing a clean room analysis of requirements but I am very concerned that OGSA does not look at developing any new specifications until it has determined why existing established specifications (and their various extensibility options) are not viable.
Steven -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Steven Newhouse Mob:+44(0)7920489420 Tel:+44(0)23 80598789 Director, Open Middleware Infrastructure Institute-UK (OMII-UK) c/o Suite 6005, Faraday Building (B21), Highfield Campus, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
-- ogsa-wg mailing list ogsa-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-wg
-- Ian Foster, Director, Computation Institute Argonne National Laboratory & University of Chicago Argonne: MCS/221, 9700 S. Cass Ave, Argonne, IL 60439 Chicago: Rm 405, 5640 S. Ellis Ave, Chicago, IL 60637 Tel: +1 630 252 4619. Web: www.ci.uchicago.edu. Globus Alliance: www.globus.org.
Andrew,
By the way we were NOT proposing the XML stuff we sent as a "standard" - rather a sketch of the level of detail we might want to address.
Ahh. That was not clear to me from the email and slide deck.
The question before us is - 1) adopt something existing, or 2) gather best practices and generate some sort of simple least common denominator a la JSDL, or 3) try and design by committee a complete package.
I personally think (2) is the best choice :-).
Considering there is a whole lot of existing tooling around 1 I'd like to see where these solutions fail - and if extension mechanisms can correct these failures - before even going down 2. But clearly the way to do these is to define the common use cases - be they simple workflow or the more complicated co-scheduling of coupled applications that Donal proposes. Steven -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Steven Newhouse Mob:+44(0)7920489420 Tel:+44(0)23 80598789 Director, Open Middleware Infrastructure Institute-UK (OMII-UK) c/o Suite 6005, Faraday Building (B21), Highfield Campus, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
participants (3)
-
Andrew Grimshaw -
Ian Foster -
Steven Newhouse