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

[Hiro Kishimoto]

Ian's email bounced.
-- 
Hiro Kishimoto


Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:46:52 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: [ogsa-naming-wg] Re: [ogsa-wg] Abstract names in BES
From: itf at mcs.anl.gov
To: "Frank Siebenlist" <franks at mcs.anl.gov>
Cc: "Mark McKeown" <zzalsmm3 at nessie.mcc.ac.uk>,
	"Donal K. Fellows" <donal.k.fellows at manchester.ac.uk>,
	ogsa-wg at ggf.org, ogsa-naming-wg at ggf.org, ogsa-bes-wg at ggf.org

I'm concerned that the following two notions may be inconsistent:

a) WS-Names should be globally unique (Andrew)

b) The WS-Name can be used to pass a LSF jobid (Chris)

Or is Chris proposing that LSF be changed to generate its jobids with
whatever scheme WS-Naming proposes to ensure global uniqueness? (If it
doesn't, then I don't think that Chris can guarantee that the names that
LSF generates and the names that someone else generates will not collide.)

Ian.




 >> Mark McKeown wrote:
 >
 >>>> Hi Donal,
 >>>>
 >>>>
 >>
 >>>>>>>> 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.
 >>>>>>
 >>
 >>>>
 >>>> I am not sure I understand your comment - you don't seem to
 >>>> be disagreeing with me...
 >>>>
 >>>> Frank wants to use the EPR's wsa:Address IRI as an AbstractName,
 >>>> Chris wants to send a LSF jobid to the client and the W3C
 >>>> recommends that IRIs should be opaque. One way to include
 >>>> the LSF jobid in the EPR is to embed it into the wsa:Address
 >>>> IRI, this might help make it unique and the client could extract
 >>>> it from the IRI - however the W3C recommends that IRIs
 >>>> should be opaque.
 >>>>
 >
 >>
 >> Well, I also believe that it's better to keep the IRIs opaque and was
 >> suggesting to use the complete IRI itself as an alternative jobId.
 >>
 >> Whether that could work depends on the use cases we have to consider...
 >>
 >> -Frank.
 >>
 >> --
 >> Frank Siebenlist               franks at mcs.anl.gov
 >> The Globus Alliance - Argonne National Laboratory
 >>
 >>