[drmaa-wg] FW: [ogsa-wg] RE: [saga-rg] Re: OGSA EMC BoF on Simple job submission
hrabri.rajic at intel.com
Tue Feb 8 14:36:37 CST 2005
Here is one e-mail that has most of the necessary info regarding the
OGSA EMS recent BoF efforts. I have also attached a relevant EMS call
minutes to save you a trip to OGSA-WG archive.
As said before, we have no stuff to contribute at the moment, so no
action is necessary.
From: owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org] On Behalf Of
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 2:07 PM
To: John Shalf; Bill Nitzberg; Stephen Pickles; Tom Goodale
Cc: Simple API for Grid Applications WG; ogsa-wg at ggf.org
Subject: [ogsa-wg] RE: [saga-rg] Re: OGSA EMC BoF on Simple job
> 4) Simple job submission BoF preparation (30 min)
line does not reflect well what was meant as a work for the group. The
choice of words was simply unfortunate. What OGSA-WG had in mind should
have come as an input from discussions summarized in the attached
document which mostly appears to not have direct relevance for SAGA-RG
work. It this point I pass the role of the middleman to Chris who
should be able to give more background for the SAGA-RG if necessary.
Let me put my industry hat and clarify the last point.
Even though Grid APIs are not the same as the MPI standard, just imagine
having different MPI standards for physicists, biochemists, CS people,
etc all approved by the same standards body. I do not know if SAGA API
could answer everyone's Grid API needs, but it is worth a try.
From: John Shalf [mailto:jshalf at lbl.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 11:37 AM
To: Bill Nitzberg; ogsa-wg at ggf.org; Rajic, Hrabri; Simple API for Grid
Applications WG; Stephen Pickles; Tom Goodale
Subject: Re: [saga-rg] Re: OGSA EMC BoF on Simple job submission
On Feb 8, 2005, at 8:46 AM, Tom Goodale wrote:
>> SAGA-RG people like to engage OGSA EMC and possibly co-sponsor a
>> job submission WG? This could be a nice opportunity to tie in the
>> classic API and the WSDL approach.
> I'm not sure how relevent this would be, unless you are thinking of a
> direct mapping of the SAGA API into WSDL, which may not make sense,
> and would probably constrain the new group too much, however we should
> certainly make sure we have some people at the BoF.
Well, this should be cause for further discussion. The application
programmer point of view on this will be "I don't really care what's
underneath as long as it does what I ask of it when I call the right
subroutine". So the WSDL mapping is more on the implementation side of
things. That being said, having a working implementation is quite
important. So it may be very interesting to pursue as a path to
implementation (albeit not the only path). I think the concern on the
SAGA side is that the WSDL interface will be adjusted to accommodate
the semantics defined by the application use cases rather than the
other way around. But this sounds pretty reasonable to me.
>> One thing to consider: Do we really need APIs in SRM, APME, and now
>> ARCH areas?
> I'm not sure I understand this question ? We have APIs for the
> functional areas we identified from our use cases.
Just to echo this part of Tom's note, the API's are driven by the use
cases. The use cases thus far didn't describe any good SRM
applications (or at least SRM-like requirements were not described in
enough detail for us to act upon). It could just be that the apps
people are so bogged down in remote file access issues that they don't
realize they need good Storage Resource Management systems yet. If we
get some well described SRM, APME, or ARCH use cases, that will
motivate development of APIs in those areas. (its not that those areas
are not important)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Basic EMS Services.doc
Size: 156160 bytes
Desc: Basic EMS Services.doc
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/drmaa-wg/attachments/20050208/c77c37fc/attachment.doc
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
More information about the drmaa-wg