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

Tue Mar 1 11:07:24 CST 2005

Hi Dennis,

MS were definitely in evidence at the meeting that Tony reported in his
GridToday article.  Whether the MS people there represented official
company policy is less clear, but certainly those people have had some
influence in the UK e-Science community.

Other people are concerned that if MS do not explicitly support WSRF,
this will make it harder to develop and/or deploy Grid services on MS
systems.  WSRF supporters say that this will have no effect, as the
support that MS has for WS-Addressing is sufficient.  It seems to me
that this question could be settled by experiment.  A WSRF supporter who
is fluent in .Net could sit down with some of the sceptics while they
attempt to create a WSRF service.  

Dave.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Dennis Gannon
> Sent: 01 March 2005 12:54
> To: Ian Foster
> Cc: Samuel Meder; ogsa-wg; Tony Hey
> Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 
> 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards'
> 
> hi Ian,
> i agree that this consistency is critical.  But how much WSRF or
> ws-trans/ws-enum must be visible to the application builder?  Perhaps
> it is essential that one or the other must be exposed.  i don't know.
> perhaps doing so just adds another layer abstraction layer as frank
> suggests. but it may also be that we have defined the wrong 
> abstraction
> layers to start from.  again, i don't know.
> 
> my other point is this: i don't see this as a debate with MS.  i see a
> debate right in the core of GGF membership.  from what i can 
> see, MS is a
> no-show at this party.
> 
> dennis
> 
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, 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
> > > > > >----
> > > > > >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
> > 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
> >
> 
> 