[ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards'
Dave Berry
daveb at nesc.ac.uk
Tue Mar 1 11:17:29 CST 2005
Mark,
Perhaps you could be a person that sits down with some of the sceptics
and tries to get to the bottom of their concerns?
Dave.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Morgan [mailto:mmm2a at virginia.edu]
> Sent: 01 March 2005 17:10
> To: Dave Berry; gannon at cs.indiana.edu; foster at mcs.anl.gov
> Cc: meder at mcs.anl.gov; ogsa-wg at gridforum.org; tony.hey at epsrc.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey:
> 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards'
>
> 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
More information about the ogsa-wg
mailing list