[ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28, noon-1:30
Marty Humphrey
humphrey at cs.virginia.edu
Wed Jun 22 10:56:32 CDT 2005
I want to clarify this ...
Yes, composability is certainly important, both with regard to the
specifications/standards as well as the profiles.
With regard to composability of *profiles*, everyone agrees that WS-I BP 1.1
supports composability, and WS-I "Simple SOAP Binding Profile 1.0" and WS-I
"Attachments Profile 1.0" support composability, but no one would attempt to
layer WS-I "Simple SOAP Binding Profile 1.0" onto WS-I "Attachments Profile
1.0" (or the other way around). So they're not "composable" in this sense.
I see an analogous situation for some (all?) "OGSA Profiles" -- particularly
the WSRF Profile and any potential profile coming out of this BOF.
Note that you might say that a WSRF profile could layer on a "WS-I OGSA
Profile", but then I would question the very existence/purpose of this "WS-I
OGSA Profile" (as it would seem to add no functionality above WS-I Basic
Profile 1.1 and WS-I Basic Security Profile 1.0).
-- Marty
Marty Humphrey
Assistant Professor
Department of Computer Science
University of Virginia
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Maguire [mailto:tmaguire at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 8:01 AM
> To: Djaoui, A (Abdeslem)
> Cc: Ian Foster; Marty Humphrey; Ogsa-Wg; owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org;
> Subramaniam, Ravi
> Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28, noon-1:30
>
> +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
>
More information about the ogsa-wg
mailing list