[ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards'
Mark Morgan
mmm2a at virginia.edu
Tue Mar 1 11:09:39 CST 2005
Isn't WSRF.NET at the University of Virginia essentially proof of this?
--
Mark Morgan
Research Scientist
Department of Computer Science
University of Virginia
http://www.cs.virginia.edu
mmm2a at virginia.edu
(434) 982-2790
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org] On
> Behalf Of Dave Berry
> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 12:07 PM
> To: Dennis Gannon; Ian Foster
> Cc: Samuel Meder; ogsa-wg; Tony Hey
> Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey:
> 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards'
>
> 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
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 5231 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-wg/attachments/20050301/fde51e78/attachment.bin
More information about the ogsa-wg
mailing list