[glue-wg] New draft of GLUE 2.0 Specification - sites, elements etc

[Laurence Field]

Hi Steve,

I completely agree.

I was hoping that the reference model group would let us know what the 
resource, service, site etc. were and the relationship between them. If 
they do not do this for use we will just have to define what we think 
they are.

Laurence


Fisher, SM (Steve) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I still have reservations about the resource, service, site etc
> entities.
>
> The share expresses the relationship between resource and service. I
> don't think we need "element" any more. 
>
> >From the point of view of service discovery we need to find a service
> which has a share with a policy expressing that a particular VO has some
> resources. Is all VO specific policy in the share?
>
> If we get rid of element both services and resources might need a
> relationship to a site - in which case we should try to define precisely
> what that relationship means. It may be different for a resource and a
> service
>
> Should I presume that a Computing service is a service (inheritance). If
> this is the case we need to think at some stage just how this will be
> realised.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> glue-wg mailing list
> glue-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
>