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

[Fred Maciel]

Hi Steven, 

> > Try to steer the discusion past that one (or around it), so 
> that we can get
> > to the next problem:
> 
> The purpose of the BOF is to explore if there is interest in 
> developing 
> a second OGSA profile. I don't see this as a discussion point 
> within the 
> BoF unless their is overlap.. and isn't this what the GFSG examines?

- When I sent that e-mail the agenda was not that clear, and in fact it
still isn't -- it's time for a formal agenda listing what is going to be
discussed, and especially what is *not* going to be discussed. Notice that I
posted that e-mail as an attempt to make things clearer, and I'm saying that
this subject is improductive and worth avoiding.

-  The word "second" above is important, because that's when it stops being
"only one". So if the session leaders don't take care the "(1) Are multiple
base profiles OK to begin with?" subject will come up, directly or
indirectly, and a lot of time will be wasted in religious discussions among
people who disagree with the GFSG policy.

> > (3) What are the plans for the "WS-I-only" profile?
> 
> What is being proposed is not a WS-I only OGSA profile. WS-I (basic & 
> security profiles) define a set of specifications and how 

Just to clarify, the use of quotation marks above was intentional due to the
lack of a name, and I agree with what you said.

> > I agree multiple basic profiles are bad idea wrt interoperability
> > and architecture perspective.
> 
> But may be critical to wider grid adoption which is why I believe GGF
> accepts multiple approaches. IMHO it is a pity that this policy still
> seems to be resisted... may be we should drop the O in OGSA?
> 
> Recall, that the 'OGSI profile' did not gain wide adoption. Exploring
> different approaches can only help to improve understanding. What is
> important IMHO is to bring all approaches into a standards process so
> that whatever mechanisms that are used are defined. Once 
> defined natural selection can drive their evolution.

I won't be able to go to the MWS-BOF (I'll be in the OGSA-EGA session), so
I'll leave my opinion registered here, very briefly.

The risk is that if we leave it for the market to decide, the market won't
choose against one or another profile, but it will choose against OGSA as a
whole. The people willing to pay for OGSA functionality won't be able to get
different components from different parties to work together because they
won't fit the same profile, won't speak the same protocols, etc.. The fact
that the architecture is theoretically unified will mean nothing because,
from their point of view, in practice things simply do not work, period.
OGSA as a brand will be meaningless. Who wins then? I have a few guesses,
but I am not stupid enough to list them in public forum.

Being sarcastic, on the letter "O", perhaps the GGF was truly Open around
GGF6, when OGSA was just an architecture among many, nothing special. But
the GFSG chose it as the "flagship architecture" of the GGF, stating at
least a preference. Allowing multiple profiles without preferences moves
things back in the direction of GGF6, which for some people is wonderful,
and for others, disastrous. (Again, I'm being sarcastic, don't waste your
time taking this too seriously).

Regards,

Fred Maciel

Consensus is the absence of leadership
                                    -- Margaret Thatcher