[DAIS-WG] [dais-wg] Stepping Down as Co-Chair

[Malcolm Atkinson]

Dear Ny Haingo Andrianarisoa 

It is very interesting to hear about your implementation, that may be an
important element in demonstrating multiple implementations and
interoperability.

We (OGSA-DAI) go on developing systems using WSRF at present and I see
no reason to assume that the WSRF standards won't continue for some
time. We also develop WS-I ones.  Others also use other WSRF
implementations with OGSA-DAI.

I assume that eventually there will be a proposal for WSRT that has been
through standards processes and that is backed by major IT vendors.
This is likely to offer similar functionality to WSRF as that
functionality is necessary.  When there are implementations, I expect it
to be relatively straightforward to map onto these as we map onto WSRF
at present.  I suspect it will be a couple of years at least before this
happens. But if there are early opportunities to explore and plan then
that will be welcome.

Because of investment in and continuing development of WSRF, I can
imagine that there will be a period of co-existence.  How long that will
be I cannot guess. It depends a lot on how well crafted the revised set
of standards are and how well they supply the required functions, such
as access to management state information and life-time management that
supports resource discovery up after partial failures.  It will also
depend on the quality and accessibility of the implementations and the
extent of support for the replacement standards.

Malcolm





-----Original Message-----
From: dais-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:dais-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf
Of Ny Haingo Andrianarisoa
Sent: 05 October 2006 15:34
To: dais-wg
Cc: N.Ha. Andrianarisoa (Aricie)
Subject: Re: [DAIS-WG] [dais-wg] Stepping Down as Co-Chair


Dear all,

I would first join Malcolm Atkinson in thanking Norman Paton and the 
DAIS-WG main contributors for all the work that has been led and done 
until the publication of DAIS specifications as GGF (should it be 
henceforth called: OGF?) recommandation documents.

Nevertheless a piece of Norman Paton's sentences disturbed me a little: 
"a demise of WSRF". What should I (we?) understand? Would WSRF 
specifications be overshadowed by "simple" WS standards? For the rest, 
WSRF seems to me too specific for grid services to be given up -I think 
this observation looks obvious for anyone concerned with grids.

To my knowledge, WSRF still goes on (version 1.2 raised on April 2006). 
One of our current leading projects is based on an implementation of 
WS-DAI and its relational realization (according the latest 
specifications) over the WSRF.NET framework (thanks to Marty Humphrey 
and his team from the University of Virginia). Should we definitely 
change our framework foundations? I hope we would not have to do so.

Thanks for your clarification. My apologizes in case this message is 
sent (or felt to be sent) to an inappropriate place -although I believe 
many people would be interested in the WSRF status.

With regards,
Ny Haingo Andrianarisoa.
--
  dais-wg mailing list
  dais-wg at ogf.org
  http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dais-wg