[DAIS-WG] [dais-wg] Stepping Down as Co-Chair
foster at mcs.anl.gov
Fri Oct 6 05:01:31 CDT 2006
Dear M. Andrianarisoa:
I believe that Norman was speaking to the "convergence roadmap" that some
of the big industrial players (Microsoft, IBM, HP, Sun, etc.) produced
recently, which aims to reconcile the differences between
WSRF/WS-Notification (the OASIS standard) and
WS-Transfer/WS-Man/WS-Eventing (Microsoft and friends). The good news is
that the proposed WS-ResourceTransfer specification (NOT in a standards
body, but published in draft form) provides the essential WSRF
functionality, and apparently has the backing of some major players:
These developments are frustrating for those developing standards, as they
mean that revisions will likely be needed down the road. (Although the
impact of these changes can be overstated: all standards evolve over time,
including fundamental ones like WSDL.)
For those developing software, I assert that these developments are not
important. People building services recognize, as you do, that there are
big advantages to using pre-packaged implementations of state management
and access functions, for which there are now good implementations from
GT4, WSRF.NET, etc., rather than building their own from scratch. That's
certainly our experience, and the experience of the many others that work
with GT4. If WSRT gains traction, then at some point it will likely be
advantageous to update the operations used for state access. But that will
probably be a couple of years, and software like GT4 will make that easy to
do. (We've learned things about such transformations over the years.)
Regards -- Ian.
At 04:33 PM 10/5/2006 +0200, Ny Haingo Andrianarisoa wrote:
>I would first join Malcolm Atkinson in thanking Norman Paton and the
>DAIS-WG main contributors for all the work that has been led and done
>until the publication of DAIS specifications as GGF (should it be
>henceforth called: OGF?) recommandation documents.
>Nevertheless a piece of Norman Paton's sentences disturbed me a little:
>"a demise of WSRF". What should I (we?) understand? Would WSRF
>specifications be overshadowed by "simple" WS standards? For the rest,
>WSRF seems to me too specific for grid services to be given up -I think
>this observation looks obvious for anyone concerned with grids.
>To my knowledge, WSRF still goes on (version 1.2 raised on April 2006).
>One of our current leading projects is based on an implementation of
>WS-DAI and its relational realization (according the latest
>specifications) over the WSRF.NET framework (thanks to Marty Humphrey
>and his team from the University of Virginia). Should we definitely
>change our framework foundations? I hope we would not have to do so.
>Thanks for your clarification. My apologizes in case this message is
>sent (or felt to be sent) to an inappropriate place -although I believe
>many people would be interested in the WSRF status.
>Ny Haingo Andrianarisoa.
> dais-wg mailing list
> dais-wg at ogf.org
Ian Foster -- Weblog: http://ianfoster.typepad.com
Computation Institute: www.ci.uchicago.edu & www.ci.anl.gov
Argonne: MCS/221, 9700 S. Cass Ave, Argonne, IL 60439
Chicago: Rm 405, 5640 S. Ellis Ave, Chicago, IL 60637
Tel: +1 630 252 4619 --- Globus Alliance: www.globus.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the dais-wg