[glue-wg] Adopting a GLUE2 XML Schema?

[Laurence Field]

I would like to second Stevens comment. Those that need XML should try 
to define an agreed rendering.  We should probably start with the 
Teragrid one as a baseline and go from there. If anyone thinks that 
there are any issues that need discussing we can always collect them and 
have a phone conference to sort them out. For the LDAP rendering it only 
took a could of calls. Is there anyone who is motivated enough and has 
enough time to lead this effort?

Laurence


stephen.burke at stfc.ac.uk wrote:
> glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org 
>   
>> [mailto:glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of Warren Smith said:
>> Of course, the TeraGrid GLUE 2 XML Schema isn't a standard 
>> and I can't say how similar it will be to an official OGF GLUE 2 XML
>>     
> Schema.
>
> Well, this is supposed to be a community effort so it should be possible
> for you to contribute to the definition of the official XML rendering
> ... however personally I'm not involved in that so I can't comment
> directly.
>
>   
>> In 
>> fact, one warning I'd give about the TeraGrid schema is that 
>> we chose a 
>> flat hierarchy of XML elements in that schema (e.g. 
>> ComputeActivity is a 
>> sibling of ComputeShare instead of a child of ComputeShare). The last 
>> discussions I remember seeing on the GLUE working group list 
>> seemed to 
>> have more people favoring a deeper hierarchy...
>>     
>
> I think Nordugrid favoured that. However, for the LDAP rendering we
> tried to keep the abstract schema properties as much as possible - LDAP
> obviously forces you to have a tree, but the objects are all linked via
> foreign keys and unqiue IDs so you don't need the tree to navigate. In
> that case you could potentially restructure the tree without changing
> any queries. If XML follows the same kind of route you could even do
> joint queries across representations.
>
> Stephen
>