[ogsa-naming-wg] Re: [ogsa-wg] Abstract names in BES
Hiro Kishimoto
hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com
Thu Nov 10 18:28:13 CST 2005
Ian's email bounced.
--
Hiro Kishimoto
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:46:52 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: [ogsa-naming-wg] Re: [ogsa-wg] Abstract names in BES
From: itf at mcs.anl.gov
To: "Frank Siebenlist" <franks at mcs.anl.gov>
Cc: "Mark McKeown" <zzalsmm3 at nessie.mcc.ac.uk>,
"Donal K. Fellows" <donal.k.fellows at manchester.ac.uk>,
ogsa-wg at ggf.org, ogsa-naming-wg at ggf.org, ogsa-bes-wg at ggf.org
I'm concerned that the following two notions may be inconsistent:
a) WS-Names should be globally unique (Andrew)
b) The WS-Name can be used to pass a LSF jobid (Chris)
Or is Chris proposing that LSF be changed to generate its jobids with
whatever scheme WS-Naming proposes to ensure global uniqueness? (If it
doesn't, then I don't think that Chris can guarantee that the names that
LSF generates and the names that someone else generates will not collide.)
Ian.
>> Mark McKeown wrote:
>
>>>> Hi Donal,
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Regarding Chris's desire to be able to pass the LSF jobid
>>>>>>>> back to the client somehow - it could be included in the EPR's
>>>>>>>> Metdata, possibly RDF could be used to mark up the Metadata
>>>>>>>> to indicate that it is a LSF jobid. In this way the Address
>>>>>>>> IRI can be kept opaque.
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> That would seem to me to be needless disambiguation. Surely it
is just
>>>>>> up to the service that mints the abstract name to understand it;
there
>>>>>> is no inherent need for it to explain what that means to anyone
else.
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure I understand your comment - you don't seem to
>>>> be disagreeing with me...
>>>>
>>>> Frank wants to use the EPR's wsa:Address IRI as an AbstractName,
>>>> Chris wants to send a LSF jobid to the client and the W3C
>>>> recommends that IRIs should be opaque. One way to include
>>>> the LSF jobid in the EPR is to embed it into the wsa:Address
>>>> IRI, this might help make it unique and the client could extract
>>>> it from the IRI - however the W3C recommends that IRIs
>>>> should be opaque.
>>>>
>
>>
>> Well, I also believe that it's better to keep the IRIs opaque and was
>> suggesting to use the complete IRI itself as an alternative jobId.
>>
>> Whether that could work depends on the use cases we have to consider...
>>
>> -Frank.
>>
>> --
>> Frank Siebenlist franks at mcs.anl.gov
>> The Globus Alliance - Argonne National Laboratory
>>
>>
More information about the ogsa-wg
mailing list