[ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 'Challenging Timesfor GGF & Standards'
Hiro Kishimoto
hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com
Tue Mar 1 23:02:03 CST 2005
Marty's email bounced.
----
Hiro Kishimoto
From: "Marty Humphrey" <humphrey at cs.virginia.edu>
To: "'Mark Morgan'" <mmm2a at virginia.edu>, <daveb at nesc.ac.uk>,
<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>, "'Marty Humphrey'" <humphrey at cs.virginia.edu>
Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 'Challenging Timesfor
GGF & Standards'
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 13:26:55 -0500
Folks,
At the risk of jumping into this late...
We have a full-featured implementation of WSRF available right now via
http://www.ws-rf.net
Regarding "MS's position" on WSRF.... First, there is largely NOT a "single MS",
as "Microsoft Research Cambridge" is not "Microsoft Research Redmond", and
neither of them are "MS Corporate". My team's project interacts most closely
with Microsoft Research Redmond, which neither "endorses" our work or
"dismisses" our work because it may or may not conflict with "MS Corporate"
business models and/or corporate specifications. I note however that we have a
decent number of conversations with both Microsoft Research Redmond and
Microsoft Corporate regarding our research project. Our dialogues focus on the
utility of WSRF, the alternatives to WSRF, the use of the MS tooling, etc.
Microsoft Research and Microsoft Corporate have always been very interested in
our project -- what we're doing, and why. We have great feedback and
conversations. I have nothing but good things to say about MS
Corporate/Research.
Our project's focus has always been, I believe, a proper mix of research and
development. It's not necessarily our mission to ONLY build something that
completely aligns with the Microsoft corporate mission and tooling -- neither is
our mission to create something just for the sake of creating it! If the MS
tooling and approach solves "The Problem"(tm), then we'll be happy to just use
it. To date, I'm not sure that this is the case (hence our project's existence).
In summary, I think we have a solid implementation of WSRF.NET and we're very
committed to supporting it and broadening it.
Please let me know if there are specific questions that I can answer! (As I
mentioned, I jumped in a little late, so I'm not sure if I am really commenting
on the "right" issues).
-- Marty
Marty Humphrey
Assistant Professor
Department of Computer Science
University of Virginia
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org] On Behalf
> Of Mark Morgan
> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 12:10 PM
> To: daveb at nesc.ac.uk; 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
> Timesfor 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