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

[Ian Foster]

Dear M. Andrianarisoa:

I believe that Norman was speaking to the "convergence roadmap" that some 
of the big industrial players (Microsoft, IBM, HP, Sun, etc.) produced 
recently, which aims to reconcile the differences between 
WSRF/WS-Notification (the OASIS standard) and 
WS-Transfer/WS-Man/WS-Eventing (Microsoft and friends). The good news is 
that the proposed WS-ResourceTransfer specification (NOT in a standards 
body, but published in draft form) provides the essential WSRF 
functionality, and apparently has the backing of some major players:

http://ianfoster.typepad.com/blog/2006/09/wsresourcetrans.html

These developments are frustrating for those developing standards, as they 
mean that revisions will likely be needed down the road. (Although the 
impact of these changes can be overstated: all standards evolve over time, 
including fundamental ones like WSDL.)

For those developing software, I assert that these developments are not 
important. People building services recognize, as you do, that there are 
big advantages to using pre-packaged implementations of state management 
and access functions, for which there are now good implementations from 
GT4, WSRF.NET, etc., rather than building their own from scratch. That's 
certainly our experience, and the experience of the many others that work 
with GT4. If WSRT gains traction, then at some point it will likely be 
advantageous to update the operations used for state access. But that will 
probably be a couple of years, and software like GT4 will make that easy to 
do. (We've learned things about such transformations over the years.)

Regards -- Ian.

At 04:33 PM 10/5/2006 +0200, Ny Haingo Andrianarisoa wrote:

>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

_______________________________________________________________
Ian Foster -- Weblog: http://ianfoster.typepad.com
Computation Institute: www.ci.uchicago.edu & www.ci.anl.gov
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 --- Globus Alliance: www.globus.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/dais-wg/attachments/20061006/92302bb1/attachment.html