[ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28, noon-1:30
Djaoui, A (Abdeslem)
A.Djaoui at rl.ac.uk
Wed Jun 22 12:55:47 CDT 2005
Please see inlined comments <AD/>.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org]On Behalf Of
Marty Humphrey
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 4:57 PM
To: 'Ogsa-Wg'
Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28, noon-1:30
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.
<AD>
Yes I agree the change from BP 1.0 to 1.1 was partly driven by a need to allow COMPOSITION of RELEVANT profiles.
For the the example 3 profiles above: If your web service is not using attachement you would compose BP 1.1
with SSBP1.0, if it is using attachements you will need to compose BP1.1 and AP1.0.
These can be seen as different bindings.
>From a user point of view these are the only meaningful compositions (you either want to use SOAP with attachement or without.).
When there is a tight coupling between profiles, the profile document itself
should state how it is intended to be used or composed with other profiles.
If other binding protocols
become available (MTOM for example) you would need BP1.1 with MTOM 1.0 or whatever.
But of course you web service could support many bindings ....
But I take your point that some compositions might not make sense.
</AD>
I see an analogous situation for some (all?) "OGSA Profiles" -- particularly
the WSRF Profile and any potential profile coming out of this BOF.
<AD>
If by analogous situation you mean non composable, I disagree.
A more sensible approach would be to allow all OGSA basic profiles to be implemented together,
(although higher related profiles will only compose with their corresponding profile).
This is starightforward when the profiles rely on different specifications.
When they refer the same specification, care should be taken not to have contradictory statements
that lead to non-composability problems.
</AD>
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).
<AD>
Yes I agree.
I was thinking more along the lines of a new profile based on WS-Transfer and WS-Eventing.
The new profile and WSRF profile should be made to live happily together.
So people will have the choice of two OGSA stacks. But there shouldn't be anything stopping them
from implementing both stacks.
Abdeslem
</AD>
-- 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