[ogsa-wg] FINAL CALL: OGSA 1.5 Architecture and Glossary

[Karl Czajkowski]

On Jul 13, Subramaniam, Ravi modulated:
> Hi David,
> 
> I see what you are saying and I did consider that. The glossary term
> implied a "many to one" or "one to one" situation - one provider. What I
> was suggesting is a "one to many" situation which is very likely. So the
> situation where you have multiple providers accepting to an agreement
> (which at a higher level may be a single contract between domains) is
> still a "one to many" situation that the glossary term should cover.
> Right?
> 
> Ravi
> 


If you want to be general, I think the agreement should be BETWEEN two
parties (i.e. the legally bound parties) but REGARDING multiple
services, some of which may be provided (directly or indirectly) by
either party.

I also think the important thing is to realize that the services must
be described clearly in terms of domain-specific operating
constraints, including the roles/responsibilities of the agreeing
parties. It is folly to try to state these roles in general about the
agreement parties in isolation from the service-specific models.

The idea of who is the "producer" and the "consumer" is really
domain-specific and there are plenty of cases where you have to stand
on your head and count backwards to even make such a distinction. (For
example, with peering arrangements: you would have to factor out the
peering "service" into separate parts where you look at each part as a
directed provider/consumer aspect of the overall service.)


karl

-- 
Karl Czajkowski
karlcz at univa.com