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

[Subramaniam, Ravi]

Hi,

David: I agree with the modifications. 

But while we are on the topic 

I think Karl's point on BETWEEN and REGARDING is along the lines of what
I was thinking but I guess where I was taking this was in the
distinction between "establishment" and "honoring/binding" of agreement.


The establishment can be done between two parties (e.g. between lawyers
in the real world) but is binding on the parties (either singly or
multiply(sp?)) that have delegated to the establishers. In this example,
the lawyers are not the "legally bound parties" though they were
instrumental in setting up the agreement. (The analogy in the grid could
be pools that span hard boundaries (e.g. organizational).) 

In this case though there is a single agreement, it is between multiple
parties (each playing a role and executing a responsibility as per the
agreement). So from the "binding" view/perspective the agreement is
between multiple parties but from the establishment perspective it is
one-one. 

I have been taking agreement to be more closely tied to the
"honoring/binding" and less to the "establishment" since higher order
decisions can be made on an agreement if there is a reasonable
"guarantee" that it will be honored. Advisory agreements have their
place but I don't see that as the dominant model. 

Would it be accurate to observe that where the disconnect here is that
the view taken in the thread is that the establishment is the key and
hence having that bi-party is desired but I have taken the
"binding/honoring view" where the referenced parties define the
agreement?

BTW: I agree with the comments on the consumer/producer roles are not
fixed. If I did come across as otherwise it was inadvertent. I actually
used the term provider which I envisioned as including consumer and/or
producer and additional aspects like say manageability.

Ravi

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org] On Behalf Of
David Snelling
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 1:24 AM
To: Karl Czajkowski
Cc: Subramaniam, Ravi; Andreas Savva; ogsa-wg
Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] FINAL CALL: OGSA 1.5 Architecture and Glossary

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)