[ogsa-naming-wg] Re: [ogsa-wg] Abstract names in BES

[Donal K. Fellows]

Mark McKeown wrote:
> Regarding Chris's desire to be able to pass the LSF jobid
> back to the client somehow - it could be included in the EPR's
> Metdata, possibly RDF could be used to mark up the Metadata
> to indicate that it is a LSF jobid. In this way the Address
> IRI can be kept opaque.

That would seem to me to be needless disambiguation. Surely it is just
up to the service that mints the abstract name to understand it; there
is no inherent need for it to explain what that means to anyone else.

> There is an interesting question as
> to whether sending the LSF jobid back to the client somehow
> breaks encapsulation - eg if I submit a job, the job is allocated
> a local jobid, the job is checkpointed, stopped then restarted
> on a different system with a different local jobid.

I think that just indicates that the abstract job (the one that you're
talking about) is not the same as the two concrete jobs that implement
it, and as such would have different names to both of them. On the other
hand, it would be entirely reasonable to query the abstract job to find
out what its current (or, indeed, historic) concrete jobs are.

Donal.