[ogsa-wg] Update to OGSA 1.5

[pete at ziu.net]

Andrew, 

Good idea.  The most commonly accepted language for design within the our 
arena is UML.  I think the exercise we performed at the face2face creating 
sequence diagrams for the various EMS scenarios proved to be very 
valuable.  Perhaps some UML exercises that are larger in scope could be 
very productive.  Other diagram types, and other design areas of the grid. 
  I would be more than happy to participate in such an effort.  I think a 
very good design area to document would be security as well.

Pete Ziu
571.235.0208 (c)
mailto:pete at ziu.net (h)
mailto:5712350208 at tmomail.net (sms)



"Andrew Grimshaw" <grimshaw at cs.virginia.edu>
Sent by: owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org
09/07/2005 06:42 PM

To
"'Ogsa-Wg'" <ogsa-wg at gridforum.org>
cc

bcc

Subject
[ogsa-wg] Update to OGSA 1.5



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
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-wg/attachments/20050907/2b79f85b/attachment.htm