[ogsa-wg] Update to OGSA 1.5

[David Snelling]

Andrew,

Yes we should include our object model in the V1.5 document. If you 
could do a straw-man along these lines, I think we would have a 
starting point. A lot of the interesting questions come up around "What 
is the minimum level of support provided by ALL atoms?" E.g. "Must 
every blade in a server have a globally unique name?" etc. With a 
straw-man we can start in on these questions.

Go for it!


On 7 Sep 2005, at 23:42, Andrew Grimshaw wrote:

> All,
> While explaining OGSA to some very technical folks last week it came 
> up that the 1.0 document does not describe an “object model”  so to 
> speak… in other words, what are the “atoms”, what is the minimum we 
> assume, etc.
>  
> For example, we assume:
> that resources have interfaces,
> that they process messages,
> that their behavior may be history dependent,
> that they are referenced with EPR’s,
> that the atoms may have a unique AbstractName
> that they may be both servers and clients of other services
>  
> We also seem to assume that there is some mechanism to get/set some 
> form of metadata (resource properties)
> We seem to want to be able to find out what interfaces are supported 
> (it is in base profile …. And I think should be in any profile – 
> opinion)
> We seem to assume a factory pattern – though it is not explicit, and 
> not part of lifetimes
>  
>  
> I am sure there are others.
>  
> Comments?
> Should I write something up along this line for inclusion in the 1.5 
> document?
>  
> Andrew
>  
>
-- 

Take care:

     Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com >
     Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe
     Hayes Park Central
     Hayes End Road
     Hayes, Middlesex  UB4 8FE

     +44-208-606-4649 (Office)
     +44-208-606-4539 (Fax)
     +44-7768-807526  (Mobile)