[OGSA-D-WG] Stab at Glossary Terms
Allen Luniewski
luniew at us.ibm.com
Tue Apr 17 20:55:50 CDT 2007
Dave,
Comments in-lien below.
Allen Luniewski
IBM Cross Brand Services
IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory
555 Bailey Ave.
San Jose, CA 95141
408-463-2255
408-930-1844 (mobile)
"Dave Berry" <daveb at nesc.ac.uk> wrote on 04/15/2007 03:54:52 AM:
> I think it's vital that we define these terms, because there has
> been a lack of clarity for a while about the difference between data
> access and data transfer. The existing definition of data resource
> (originally from DAIS) doesn't distinguish between these two modes
> in the way that we do, using source and sink to implicitly refer to
both.
>
> Comments inline =>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ogsa-d-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-d-wg-bounces at ogf.org]
> On Behalf Of Allen Luniewski
> Sent: 13 April 2007 20:22
> To: ogsa-d-wg at ggf.org
> Subject: [OGSA-D-WG] Stab at Glossary Terms
>
> At today's teleconference we agreed that we needed to firm up the
> definitions in our glossary of the terms Data Resource, Data Access,
> Data Transfer, Source and Sink. Currently only Data Resource has a
> definition taken from the OGSA Glossary) as:
> An entity that can act as a source or sink of data together
> with its associated framework.
>
> The confusion that was identified centered on the use of the terms
> "source" and "sink". The above definition is using them in a fairly
> generic way while the Data Architecture document uses them to mean
> the source and sink of data transfers. Here is stab at defining all
> 5 of these terms. Once we have agreed on the definitions, we may
> need to do some minor edits to the architecture document as a result.
>
> Data Access: Data access is any mechanism that allows an entity to
> identify data held by a data resource and receive that data from the
> data resource.
> Can I suggest changing "identify data" to "identify a subset of the
data"?
Agreed. Much better.
>
> I'm also not sure about saying "receive that data", as it may not be
> the requestor that receives the data (i.e. the data may be sent to a
> third party). Would it work to say "and either return that data to
> the requestor or to make it available for transfer elsewhere"? I
> think Mario had a suggestion for some phrasing that might be better
> than my attempt here.
I see your point and I agree that this needs to be fixed. Your suggestion
works for me.
> Data Resource: An entity that can act as a source or sink of data
> together with its associated framework. By source we simply mean an
> entity that can originate data. And by sink we simply mean an
> entity that receives data.
> I'm not comfortable with using source and sink in a generic fashion
> here and in a more restrictive fashion elsewhere in the document (if
> this is what you are suggesting). I'd rather just refer readers to
> the glossary definitions of these terms and make sure that all the
> entries are consistent.
>
> An alternative definition that I suggested was, "An entity (and its
> associated framework) that supports a data access interface, or that
> can act as a source or sink for data transfer", although I'm not
> strongly wedded to that.
The problem is that in the context of data resource I don't want to tie it
into data transfer, at least not in the DMI sense of data. The definition
should include data that is stored/retrieved directly as a result of a
call on the data resource's API. How about "An entity that can receive
data from a requestor or cause its data to be made available to a
requestor or a third party denoted by a requestor."
> Data Transfer: A mechanism to move data from a source of data to a sink
> of data.
> Should we say "copy" rather than "move"? Should we also say
> "physically copy" or some such phrasing to distinguish this from a
> mere renaming within a global namespace?
Yes, definitely "copy". I missed changing this one when I changed sink
and source to "copy". I am okay with physical copy although personally I
do not see it adding much value to the definition.
> Source: A data resource that contains that data to be copied to a sink
via a
> data transfer mechanism.
>
> Sink: A data resource that receives the data copied by a data transfer
> mechanism from a source.
> Currently we use "source" and "sink" to mean interfaces on a data
> resource. I think we should make this clear. We could use the
> terms to mean both the resource and the interface, provided that we
> are clear about what we are doing.
Should we add a phrase along the lines of "A sink is also the interface
provided by a data resource as part of its participation in a data
transfer." And similarly for sink.
>
> Allen Luniewski
> IBM Cross Brand Services
> IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory
> 555 Bailey Ave.
> San Jose, CA 95141
>
> 408-463-2255
> 408-930-1844 (mobile)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-d-wg/attachments/20070417/f99969de/attachment.html
More information about the ogsa-d-wg
mailing list