[OGSA-BES-WG] Tracker Resolution Descriptions

Wed Sep 6 12:47:52 CDT 2006

I agree with Chris - I never thought of this as a WS-RF versus anything else
issue - more an issue with trying to be resource model agnostic.

A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ogsa-bes-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-bes-wg-bounces at ogf.org]
> On Behalf Of Christopher Smith
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 1:17 PM
> To: Mail list for ogsa-bes-wg working group
> Cc: ogsa-bes-wg at ggf.org
> Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG] Tracker Resolution Descriptions
> 
> 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
> 
> --
>   ogsa-bes-wg mailing list
>   ogsa-bes-wg at ogf.org
>   http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-bes-wg