[ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28, noon-1:30

Wed Jun 22 07:00:52 CDT 2005

+1 to the composabiltiy aspect.  Certainly you should be able to compose
any number of profiles together.  Each one with their
own comformance claim.

Tom

Frey’s Law: “Every 5 years the number of architecture components double and
the ability to comprehend them halves”

Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when
there is nothing left to take away.   – Antoine de Saint-Exupery

T o m   M a g u i r e

STSM, On Demand Architecture

Poughkeepsie, NY  12601

             "Djaoui, A                                                    
             (Abdeslem)"                                                   
             <A.Djaoui at rl.ac.u                                          To 
             k>                        "Subramaniam, Ravi"                 
             Sent by:                  <ravi.subramaniam at intel.com>, "Ian  
             owner-ogsa-wg at ggf         Foster" <foster at mcs.anl.gov>,       
             .org                      "Marty Humphrey"                    
                                       <humphrey at cs.virginia.edu>,         
                                       "Ogsa-Wg" <ogsa-wg at gridforum.org>   
             06/22/2005 06:36                                           cc 
             AM                                                            
                                                                   Subject 
                                       RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 
                                       on Tues June 28, noon-1:30          

Hi

For me the main issues to address are:
A) Do we start from the web services design principle of COMPOSABILITY of
specifications and profiles?
B) If the answer is YES then how are we going to make sure that varoius new
GGF profiles and specifications are indeed composable with each other.
Once we have composable profiles it really doesn't matter how many profiles
we have. You can use one them or all of them, it is less tidy than having
one basic profile but its workable.
If we throw away the design principle of composability, then I am afraid it
is back to pre-OGSA pre-Web services era.

Abdeslem

      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org]On Behalf
      Of Subramaniam, Ravi
      Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 6:29 AM
      To: Ian Foster; Marty Humphrey; Ogsa-Wg
      Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28,
      noon-1:30

      Hi Marty,

      The BOF and the motivations you describe sound like a good idea. It
      would be great to hear your perspectives especially since you have
      experience with the described specs (WS-RF/WSN and WS-T, WS-E,
      WS-Enum). I think this is also a good test for the general policy
      that OGSA has adopted of admitting different profiles that are
      consistent with the general architecture.

      There has been a discussion around “lack of interoperability” with
      multiple profiles but without visiting the profiles that are
      compatible with the architecture one cannot decide which is the most
      appropriate (from one or many of the criteria like implementation
      easy, expressiveness, composability etc). Prematurely deciding that
      only one profile is the right way to go may not be beneficial in the
      long run. Given the way the industry has evolved, there is a process
      of “natural selection” and the most sophisticated or theoretical best
      solution has not won out in most cases. I agree with Mark’s
      observations. Theoretically the degrees of freedom in the number of
      profiles seem infinite but I don’t think in reality it will pan out
      into the more than a few since the “affinity” of these specs to be in
      a profile would constrain the number.

      Having said this, it would still make sense to be concrete in your
      discussion of what would be the primary motivation of the BOF and
      subsequent WG. Your points in response to Ian’s question could be
      added to the formal description of the intent of the BOF.

      Thanks for spawning this discussion.

      Ravi

      PS: I just read Fred’s comments in this thread. I think his points
      make sense. You may want to state that the need for alternate
      profiles as a primary assumption (not to be debated) and move on to
      the salient aspects of what the alternate profiles to be debated in
      the BOF are.

      From: owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org] On Behalf
      Of Ian Foster
      Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 7:43 AM
      To: Marty Humphrey; 'Ogsa-Wg'
      Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28,
      noon-1:30

      Marty:

      Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. And Mark puts it nicely:
      poetically, even (-:

      Ian.

      At 10:28 AM 6/21/2005 -0400, Marty Humphrey wrote:

      Hi Ian et. al.,

      A very good question! (“can you define the goals of the BOF more
      precisely
      other than "not WSRF"?) I sent this email in part to hear from the
      community
      how “broad” they might like it to be. That is, we’re being flexible.
      If
      someone wants to talk about one of these specific topics, we will
      certainly
      try our best to accommodate.

      Note that by default I believe the discussions will center around
      WS-Transfer, WS-Enumeration, WS-Eventing, et. al. I will talk about
      my
      team's use of WS-Transfer, WS-Enumeration, and WS-Eventing. I think
      we’re in
      a very good position to discuss the pros and cons of these specs as
      compared
      with WSRF (as our project has implemented/used both).

      Let me answer the question in a different way. GGF Chair Mark Linesch
      said
      recently: "Our approach with the OGSA architecture along with our
      collaborative work on OGSA profiles is to: (1) describe 'the most
      traveled
      paths through the forest' rather than to dictate that there is only
      one
      path; and (2) to continue to highlight that multiple, overlapping
      paths may
      not be in the interests of the industry over time"
      (
      http://news.taborcommunications.com/msgget.jsp?mid=403500&xsl=story.xsl
      )
      Simply, we believe that there has been sufficient "hallway
      discussions" on
      BOTH (1) and (2) that it makes good sense to gather people to discuss
      BOTH
      of these topics in a realistic and productive way.

      - Marty

      Marty Humphrey
      Assistant Professor
      Department of Computer Science
      University of Virginia

      ________________________________________
      From: Ian Foster [mailto:foster at mcs.anl.gov]
      Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 9:54 AM
      To: Marty Humphrey; 'Ogsa-Wg'
      Cc: 'Marty Humphrey'
      Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28,
      noon-1:30

      Marty, Steven:

      It is of course feasible, in principle, to define many different
      profiles
      for OGSA. E.g., one could build one on WS-Transfer and friends, one
      could
      build one that uses a different construct than the WS-Addressing EPR
      to
      address things, one could define one that uses JINI mechanisms, one
      could
      define one that uses CORBA, one could define one that renames all of
      the
      current WSRF and WS-Notification calls to be slightly different (oh
      wait,
      that's the first in the list (-: ), etc.

      Given the wide variety of possible alternative profiles, it would be
      helpful
      for those like me who are considering attending the BOF to know what
      more
      specifically what the goal of this work is going to be. The name
      doesn't
      provide any information, other than to imply, perhaps, that the
      interfaces
      on which the WSRF profile builds are not in some manner "minimal"
      and/or
      "simple." I.e., can you define the goals of the BOF more precisely
      other
      than "not WSRF"?

      Regards -- Ian.

      At 09:11 AM 6/21/2005 -0400, Marty Humphrey wrote:

      Folks,

      There have been a number of informal conversations lately about the
      feasibility/value/implications of a possible non-WSRF-based profile
      for
      OGSA.

      To bring all interested parties together at the same time, a BOF has
      been
      scheduled for Tuesday June 28 noon-1:30 (unfortunately at the same
      time as
      the EGA session, but there were no good times available). The agenda
      is
      still being finalized, but we expect to broadly discuss the pros/cons
      of
      such an effort, and, if the BOF attendees decide that such an effort
      would
      be valuable, produce a concrete plan for the formation of a Working
      Group.

      Here is the information that Steven Newhouse provided for the GGF
      organizers:

      "A BOF meeting to discuss the creation of a WG to define an OGSA
      Basic
      Profile that builds upon a minimal set of simple web services. The
      output of
      the group would be a document, similar in nature to the OGSA WSRF
      Basic
      Profile that would allow OGSA services to be rendered using an
      alternative
      set of WS specifications."

      I hope you can attend this (hopefully) productive and constructive
      session!

      -- Marty and Steven

      Marty Humphrey
      Assistant Professor
      Department of Computer Science
      University of Virginia
      _______________________________________________________________
      Ian Foster                    www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster
      Math & Computer Science Div.  Dept of Computer Science
      Argonne National Laboratory   The University of Chicago
      Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A.     Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A.
      Tel: 630 252 4619             Fax: 630 252 1997
              Globus Alliance, www.globus.org

      _______________________________________________________________
      Ian Foster                    www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster
      Math & Computer Science Div.  Dept of Computer Science
      Argonne National Laboratory   The University of Chicago
      Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A.     Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A.
      Tel: 630 252 4619             Fax: 630 252 1997
              Globus Alliance, www.globus.org