[jsdl-wg] OGF JSDL : We need to define which incarnation (view) of the JSDL document we are trying to specify

[Etienne URBAH]

Michel, Philipp and all,


+------------------+
|  JSDL Documents  |
+------------------+
Inside the OGF JSDL WG, we are trying to improve the specifications of 
the JSDL document.

But during the lifetime of a job, there are at least 3 incarnations (or 
views) of its JSDL document :


User JSDL Document
------------------
-  This is the document provided by the user submitting the job.

-  The syntax of this document should permit abstraction and should 
provide flexibility.

-  In particular, it is advisable that this document permits :
    -- Static 'OR' operators for requirements as described at 
http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6522
    -- Conditional requirements as described at 
http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6521


Contextualized JSDL Document
----------------------------
-  Out of the User JSDL Document, a matchmaker service produces this 
Contextualized JSDL Document and submits it to an LRMS (Batch System), 
which has to understand and execute it.

-  Therefore, the matchmaker service must solve the flexibility of the 
User JSDL Document against available resources, and the produded 
Contextualized JSDL Document must be deterministic.

-  In particular, the Contextualized JSDL Document :
    -- may still contain static 'OR' operators for requirements as 
described at http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6522
    -- should NOT contain conditional requirements as described at 
http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6521


Activity Document
-----------------
-  This Activity Document contains only timestamped history, logs, 
traces, ... about the job, for purposes of monitoring, forensics, 
security audits, stats, data mining, ...

-  Therefore, this Activity Document should contain the User JSDL 
Document and the Contextualized JSDL Document, but only as embedded text.

-  It is advisable that this Activity Document indicates, for each user 
requirement, if the matchmaker service or the LRMS (Batch system) was 
able to really fulfill this user requirement.


+-------------------------------------+
|  Target of the JSDL specifications  |
+-------------------------------------+
My personal opinion is :

-  The specifications of the Contextualized JSDL Document are already 
provided by each LRMS (Batch system), such as Condor, LSF, PBS, SGE, ...

-  The target of the JSDL specifications which we have to improve is the 
User JSDL Document.

-  We should also take into account the existence of the 2 other 
documents, and describe the impact of the JSDL specifications on them 
when relevant.


+--------------+
|  Conclusion  |
+--------------+
-  Please study carefully the definitions which I gave above for the 3 
documents.  Do not hesitate to criticize and provide suggestions for 
improvements.

-  Please provide also your opinion on which document is the target of 
the JSDL specifications.


Thank you in advance for your work.

Best regards.

-----------------------------------------------------
Etienne URBAH         LAL, Univ Paris-Sud, IN2P3/CNRS
                       Bat 200   91898 ORSAY    France
Tel: +33 1 64 46 84 87      Skype: etienne.urbah
Mob: +33 6 22 30 53 27      mailto:urbah at lal.in2p3.fr
-----------------------------------------------------


On Thu, 17/11/2011 15:36, Michel Drescher wrote:
>
> * The group discussed three "incarnations" of a JSDL document (or views):
>
>      ** The document a user submits, that allows abstraction and flexibility
>
>      ** The contextualised document, which a matchmaker service produced out of solving the flexibility in the submitted version against available resources
>
>      ** The document that describes the current activity as an activity document (see activity schema)
>
> * Take this discussion out on the mailing list and ask for comments before deciding on scope.
>
> Project: JSDL-WG

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3882 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/jsdl-wg/attachments/20111117/a48c8bc1/attachment.bin