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

[David Snelling]

Karl,

On 14 Jul 2006, at 06:22, Karl Czajkowski wrote:

> 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.

+1, but all services involved must be referenced in the agreement.

> 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.)

The idea of having a producer/consumer, while common, is really not  
general enough. In an agreement both parties have obligations and  
both provide some form of service. Even if money is involved, that  
can flow in both directions, penalties. I believe the relationship  
should be 100% symmetric.

I would alter the definition as below, but I'm ok with it as is.

An agreement defines a dynamically-established and dynamically- 
managed relationship between two parties.  The object of the  
relationship is the exchange of services between the parties within  
the context of the agreement.  The management of this relationship is  
achieved by agreeing on the respective roles, rights and obligations  
of the parties. The agreement may specify not only functional  
properties for identification or creation of services, but also non- 
functional properties of the services such as performance or  
availability.
Entities can dynamically establish and manage agreements via Web  
service interfaces.
See https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/graap-wg for information  
about work being carried out by the OGF’s Grid Resource Allocation  
Agreement Protocol (GRAAP) working group.


>
>
> karl
>
> -- 
> Karl Czajkowski
> karlcz at univa.com

-- 

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)