[OGSA-BES-WG] Tracker Resolution Descriptions

Christopher Smith csmith at platform.com
Wed Sep 6 12:16:46 CDT 2006 

Characterizing this issue as WS-RF vs WS-Transfer is misleading. I can't
recall any discussions within this group where anybody advocated doing a
WS-Transfer rendering for the BES interface. Well ... other than the WS-RF
proponents who wrongly assumed that because some (like myself) were against
the use of WS-RF, that must mean we were in favour of WS-Transfer. I also
don't recall anybody advocating operations for modification, etc such as
defined within WS-Transfer. To me this is a discussion of a resource
modelling approach (built on WS-RF) vs a non resource modelling approach.

My main reason for not wanting to make use of one of the resource modelling
approaches has to do with the burden of implementation. If Platform buys
into one of these resource models, we no longer have to implement one simple
spec and test compliance of that specification, but we need to implement and
test compliance on a suite of specifications, for (in my opinion) no extra
benefit. You might say that once you've implemented a resource modelling
suite of specifications, you can use it over and over and thus amortize the
cost of this implementation. But even at a small cost, it's not one that I'm
willing to take, as the implementation of standards specifications is one
feature in a sea of features that we implement from product release to
product release. 

-- Chris



On 06/9/06 07:56, "Peter G. Lane" <lane at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> If it's about fear of reopening the dialog, then I'd appreciate if someone
> could at least add
> comments to the two trackers addressing the issues raised.
> 
> Ian can push for reopening this particular issue if he wants; but I just want
> to know why we're
> advocating WS-Transfer in spirit if not in name, and why aggregation of
> resource attributes is not a
> concern to anyone else. As long as someone has a reason for these issues that
> I raised in the 
> tracker, I'm fine. I don't expect to get everything to go my way, and I'm open
> to being convinced of
> alternate points of view. I just don't like being ignorant, especially when
> I'll have to implement
> the spec someday.
> 
> On the other hand, if nobody has a good answer for the issues, I think Ian is
> perfectly valid in
> asking for it to be reopened as apparently the issues weren't actually
> addressed as they should have
> been.
> 
> Peter
> 
> Mark Morgan wrote:
>> Well, I guess the thing that confuses me is whether or not it is SOP to
>> re-open an issue that was discussed previously because a new person has
>> re-raised that issue.  I'll bow to whatever the majority thinks is best of
>> course, but it seems to me that you can't reopen an issue everytime a new
>> person re-raises it or you risk the possibility of continuously cycling on
>> it.  New information should always be considered, but if an issue gets
>> re-raised that has already been discussed fully and voted on, then it
>> doesn't make sense to re-discuss it.  Just my 2 cents worth...
>> 
>> -Mark 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ogsa-bes-wg-bounces at ogf.org
>>> [mailto:ogsa-bes-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Foster
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 9:39 PM
>>> To: Mail list for ogsa-bes-wg working group; 'Mail list for
>>> ogsa-bes-wg working group'; ogsa-bes-wg at ggf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG] Tracker Resolution Descriptions
>>> 
>>> Mark:
>>> 
>>> I guess that I am asking that we re-open the issue, then.
>>> 
>>> Ian.
>>> 
>>> At 07:47 PM 9/5/2006 -0400, Mark Morgan wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure what level of "addressing" is meant here, but my
>>> recollection/belief was that it was addressed in the
>>> group in so much as the
>>> topic was discussed at the last face-to-face and that
>>> the appearance of the
>>> GetAttributesDocument was the result of that
>>> discussion.  We haven't as a
>>> group discussed the email that Peter sent out yet but
>>> it is my belief that
>>> doing so is essentially a rehash of discussions previously had.
>>> 
>>> -Mark 
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: ogsa-bes-wg-bounces at ogf.org
>>>> [mailto:ogsa-bes-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Foster
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 1:42 PM
>>>> To: Mail list for ogsa-bes-wg working group;
>>> ogsa-bes-wg at ggf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG] Tracker Resolution Descriptions
>>>> 
>>>> Has Peter's comment been discussed?
>>>> 
>>>> He advocates (I believe) that we should not include the
>>>> GetAttributesDocument operation. Instead, any particular BES
>>>> should choose (if they wish) to provide access to attributes
>>>> via an appropriate resource model-specific operations.
>>>> 
>>>> * A WS-Transfer-based BES would use GET
>>>> * A WSRF-based BES would use WS-ResourceProperties
>>>> * A resource-model-free BES might define a
>>>> GetAttributesDocument operation
>>>> * etc.
>>>> 
>>>> This seems a good proposal to me.
>>>> 
>>>> Ian.
>>>> 
>>>> At 03:09 PM 9/2/2006 -0600, Peter G. Lane wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>       2) Why are we still essentially advocating
>>>> WS-Transfer's attribute model by having the
>>>> GetAttributesDocument operation? In my opinion it is not
>>>> necessary for minimal interop, and makes WS-Transfer's Get
>>>> operation redundant. Is part of the problem that we haven't
>>>> defined any interop standards yet?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________________________
>>>> Ian Foster -- Weblog: http://ianfoster.typepad.com
>>> <http://ianfoster.typepad.com/>
>>>> <http://ianfoster.typepad.com/> Computation Institute:
>>>> www.ci.uchicago.edu <http://www.ci.uchicago.edu/>
>>> <http://www.ci.uchicago.edu/>  &
>>>> www.ci.anl.gov <http://www.ci.anl.gov/>
>>> <http://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 <http://www.globus.org/>
>>>> <http://www.globus.org/>
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>>  ogsa-bes-wg mailing list
>>>  ogsa-bes-wg at ogf.org
>>>  http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-bes-wg
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________________________
>>> Ian Foster -- Weblog: http://ianfoster.typepad.com
>>> <http://ianfoster.typepad.com/> Computation Institute:
>>> www.ci.uchicago.edu <http://www.ci.uchicago.edu/>  &
>>> www.ci.anl.gov <http://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
>>> <http://www.globus.org/>
>>>       
>>>         
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>>   ogsa-bes-wg mailing list
>>   ogsa-bes-wg at ogf.org
>>   http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-bes-wg
>> 
> 
> --
>   ogsa-bes-wg mailing list
>   ogsa-bes-wg at ogf.org
>   http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-bes-wg

More information about the ogsa-bes-wg mailing list