[ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards'
fred-m at crl.hitachi.co.jp
Tue Mar 1 19:56:15 CST 2005
> Please note that I am not suggesting that WS-RF (and WS-Transfer for
> that matter) is not useful in certain cases. Indeed, in the systems
> management area it may make sense to use them. However, what it is being
> proposed in the OGSA working group (if I understand correctly) is that
> WS-RF be used as the foundation for all high-level services.
I don't think that this is the case. In fact, I think that usually, really
high-level services in OGSA will be Web services, while "lower level" stuff
(e.g., resources and their systems management) will be modeled as resources
(read: WSRF-based). Of course, there might be exceptions here and there.
You can find more details on this on the CMM-WG document (just approved as
GFD-45 today!), which is a "long" version of section 3.6 of the OGSA spec.
You can find the CMM-WG document in:
Try sections 3.2 and 5.1.
I found it quite interesting that the work on execution management
interfaces is going the WSRF way, not the Web services way -- I was
expecting the other way round. It seems that the entities they are modeling
are quite "low-level", while I was expecting a "very high-level" job
(Wait a minute. Does this all mean that I and Savas agree? What's wrong
More information about the ogsa-wg