[glue-wg] modelling users

[Laurence Field]

Hi Timo,

The Glue schema should be focusing on service discovery and service meta 
data. Although there are a few things in the schema related to 
monitoring, this is for legacy reasons and it is not something that we 
should encourage. The job monitoring is in the schema due it is 
important for ARC as they have been working this way for many years. 
However, this will not be used for EGEE.

Like Accounting, Monitoring is something where we need to have agreement 
if we are to interoperate but at the moment Glue does not aim to cover 
these things. In the future, it may or other groups will be set up to 
cover this. What is important is something like the reference model 
which defines the fundamental entities and the relationships between 
them do this and that there is coherence between the Accounting, JSDL, 
Service Discovery etc.

 I do not think that this use case currently fits in with Glue.

Laurence





Timo Baur wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I tried to express a use case regarding this topic and to handle it 
> with the current status of GLUE.
>
> Use Case:      Monitor job status for a specific user in a specific VO
>
> Note:              Extension of Job Monitoring use case (9): Find the 
> current status of a job
> Description:    Enable only VO members to find out the current status 
> of a VOs' jobs
> Conversation: ability to associate DN with VO
> Actors:            End User (VO member), user- / VO-specific 
> monitoring applications
> Conversation: Ability to query job information for a given user DN 
> and/or VO ID
> Acceptance :  Show the current status of the jobs for a given user 
> and/or VO
> Endorsed by:  D-Grid
>
> Requirements:
> it is necessary to know (job, VO), (job, DN) and (DN, VO).
>
> status-quo:
> ComputingActivity:LRMSID is managedby UserDomain -> (job, VO)
> There is a field ComputingActivity:Owner -> (job, DN)
> ComputingActivity:Owner is managedby UserDomain -> (DN, VO)
>
> Thus, in principle, the necessary information and associations to 
> resolve the use case are already available in the schema.
>
> Nevertheless, "Owner" is user related information and 
> ComputingActivities usually are managed by their Owner.
> In my opinion, it should be moved to UserDomain instead of storing it 
> in a ComputingActivity.
>
> I propose to move the string "Owner" to UserDomain or a specialization 
> of it.
> UserDomain:Owner could then, if necessary, be linked to usage 
> records:GlobalUsername, but this would be independent from our use 
> case as this would be related to the accounting of jobs which are 
> already finished, in contrast to the jobs of a VO or user which are 
> actually running.
>
> Timo
>
>
>
> Laurence Field wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> We are defining an information model but this does not necessarily 
>> mean that the whole model is published into the information system. 
>> Our currently experience is the mode of operation where everything is 
>> in the information system and this is where our experience lies.  
>> However, we might need to define some things that help us, for 
>> example, we might need an object to help us link to the Usage Record 
>> or at lease agree on certain definitions.
>>
>> If there is a clear use case for this to be in the model, we can 
>> considered it against all the other priorities.
>>
>> Laurence
>>
>> Burke, S (Stephen) wrote:
>>  
>>> glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org      
>>>> [mailto:glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of Timo Baur said:
>>>> Does anybody think it would make sense to introduce an additional 
>>>> or specialized entity for users ?
>>>>           
>>> This seems to come into the area of detailed accounting which glue is
>>> not supposed to cover. If you try to put user information into the
>>> schema it will get very big, and it may also be illegal under data
>>> protection law unless access is very restricted. In LCG/EGEE we have a
>>> specialised accounting application (APEL) which encrypts user
>>> information, but it has still taken a long time to get a legal 
>>> agreement
>>> that allows us to use it, and I think some sites still opt out of
>>> providing it.
>>>
>>> Stephen
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> glue-wg mailing list
>>> glue-wg at ogf.org
>>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
>>>       
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> glue-wg mailing list
>> glue-wg at ogf.org
>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
>>
>>   
>
>