[ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards'

[Frank Siebenlist]

So... if ws-transfer and ws-properties are sets of conventions that do 
essentially the same thing, then it's actually a great compliment to 
ogsa's choice of wsrf that MS decided that it needs a similar functionality!

Do I understand that Tony essentially asks the OGSA-WG to come up with 
an additional abstraction layer that allows one to model the usage 
patterns such that it can map to either wsrf or ws-transfer implementations?

...but if we model the usage patterns with wsrf, and wsrf and 
ws-transfer are doing conceptually the same thing, isn't the ogsa-wg 
doing just that: it uses an abstraction that can be used to describe the 
relevant usage patterns without losing any generality.

The idea of inventing "yet an other abstraction layer" doesn't sound 
very productive.

-Frank.



Ian Foster wrote:

> Dennis:
>
> I'm not sure that the "we don't need WSRF" is the heart of the debate. 
> If it was, then I think things are fairly clear: WSRF is just some 
> conventions for the messages that you send to do certain things (e.g., 
> getResourceProperty to get state, Terminate to destroy something, or 
> whatever the names are) in a WS context. If you don't have those 
> conventions, then everyone ends up defining their own, so that e.g. a 
> job management interface might have "getJobStatus" and "destroyJob", a 
> file transfer interface might have "getTransferStatus" and 
> "destroyTransfer". This lack of consistency just makes life difficult, 
> without providing any benefits.
>
> The debate with MS, as I understand it, seems to rather relate to the 
> fact that they are promoting a *different* set of conventions for 
> doing similar things, e.g., WS-Transfer instead of WS-ResourceProperties.
>
> Ian.
>
>
>
> At 10:23 PM 2/28/2005 -0500, Dennis Gannon wrote:
>
>> hi Sam,
>> i don't think MS has any orchestrated view on WSRF at all (but i may
>> be wrong.)  I think it is more the case that there are people working on
>> grid standards (outside of microsoft) that feel that what exists in the
>> ws-spec world is sufficient. hence if there is any onus, it is on those
>> folks to show us that this is true.  what tony is saying is that users,
>> i.e. application builders, should not have to deal with these 
>> details. The
>> should see clearly defined OGSA services and they should have an easy
>> to understand set of interaction patterns to use these services to build
>> thier applications.  the OGSA point of view is that to be precise in
>> the definition of these behavior patterns requires a framework like wsrf.
>>
>> i actually feel that these things can all coexist.  but from the politics
>> of "what is simple", we seem to live in interesting times.
>>
>> dennis
>>
>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Samuel Meder wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 14:38 -0800, Frank Siebenlist wrote:
>> > > Could anyone summarize MS' WS-view, and how it differs from WSRF?
>> >
>> > So far I have not seen any substantial difference between the two
>> > approaches and I definitely believe the onus is on MS to show why 
>> people
>> > should adopt their proprietary specifications vs. adopting something
>> > that is being developed in a open standards body, is getting very close
>> > to a 1.0 version and has multiple implementations behind it.
>> >
>> > /Sam
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Thanks, Frank.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >Hi all,
>> > > >
>> > > >Absorbing article by Tony Hey.
>> > > >
>> > > >http://news.tgc.com/nview.jsp?appid=360&print=1#342708 
>> <http://news.tgc.com/nview.jsp?appid=360&print=1#342708>
>> > > >----
>> > > >Hiro Kishimoto
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >>                                GRIDtoday
>> > > >>             NEWS AND INFORMATION FOR THE GLOBAL GRID COMMUNITY
>> > > >>                    --- February 28, 2005: Vol. 4, No. 8 ---
>> > > >>           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> > > >>SPECIAL FEATURES
>> > > >>==============================================================
>> > > >>
>> > > >>[ ] M342708 ) WSRF? WS-*? Where is GGF's OGSA Headed?
>> > > >>              By Tony Hey, Contributing Editor
>> > > >>
>> > > >>  Tony Hey, director of e-Science for the Engineering and Physical
>> > > >>Science Research Council, continues to elaborate the need for open
>> > > >>standards in the realm of Web services-based Grid computing. He
>> > > >>discusses the great debate of WSRF vs. WS-*, and lays out what the
>> > GGF
>> > > >>must do with OGSA in order to give e-Science application developers
>> > > >>something to rally around.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > --
>> > Sam Meder <meder at mcs.anl.gov>
>> > The Globus Alliance - University of Chicago
>> > 630-252-1752
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Ian Foster                    www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster 
> <http://www.mcs.anl.gov/%7Efoster>
> 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 <http://www.globus.org/>
>

-- 
Frank Siebenlist               franks at mcs.anl.gov
The Globus Alliance - Argonne National Laboratory