SourceForge : artf5324: (1211) What must a service satisfy before it can be called an "OGSA service?"

Project: OGSA-WG Trackers > WSRF Basic Profile > View Artifact

Artifact artf5324 : (1211) What must a service satisfy before it can be called an "OGSA service?"

Tracker:	WSRF Basic Profile
Title:	(1211) What must a service satisfy before it can be called an "OGSA service?"
Description:	[Original slightly edited.] On 11 Jan 2005, at 20:01, Dave Berry wrote: >> The following two statements were made (as >> recorded in the minutes [Jan 10, 2005]): >> >> - An 'ogsa service' must be one that implements the >> profile (or parts of the profile) in the defined >> manner. >> >> - Note that there is no a requirement to implement >> everything in the profile. Often the statements >> are of the in form: >> "if something is done it must be done this >> way" so if something is not implemented all >> the related statements do not apply. >> >> It's not clear from this what constraints MUST be >> satisfied for a service to be called an "OGSA service" - >> can the profile define a minimum set of elements that a >> service MUST implement? >> >> Dave. On 15 Jan 2005, at 07:37, Dave Snelling wrote: > Make sure this gets set as an issue, e.g. tell > Andreas. This is an aspect of Profile that the WS-I > community accept as read, but that we need to spell out. > > Well caught Dave. > .
Submitted By:	Andreas Savva
Submitted On:	01/24/2005 12:39 AM EST
Last Modified:	06/30/2008 10:48 PM EDT
Closed:	04/20/2005 2:34 PM EST

	Status / Comments		Change Log		Associations		Attachments

Status
Group: *
Status:*	Closed
Category: *	Version 1.0
Customer: *
Priority: *	3
Assigned To: *	David Snelling
Reported in Release: *
Fixed in Release: *
Estimated Hours: *	0
Actual Hours: *	0

Comments

Andreas Savva: 06/30/2008 10:48 PM EDT
	Comment:	Assigned category due to minor expected tweaks as a result of the experience document
	Action:	Update Category set to Version 1.0

Tom Maguire: 04/20/2005 2:34 PM EST
	Action:	Update artifact_status changed from Pending to Closed close_date changed from - to 2005-04-20 15:34:05

Tom Maguire: 04/20/2005 2:33 PM EST
	Comment:	Close w/ no action since we have no compliance testing mechanism in GGF.
	Action:	Update

Dave Berry: 03/10/2005 1:53 PM EST

Comment:

At the meeting hosted by UK e-Science on January 31st, there was confusion about whether every OGSA service must implement everything in the basic 
profile, or whether the profile just states that "if a service X used, it must be used this way".

Perhaps the question is: do we require that any specification that is to be included in OGSA must extend all sections of OGSA Base Profile V1.0?  I 
can well believe that this is out of scope of the profile document itself but it does need to be addressed somewhere.

Dave Snelling notes (in e-mail): The Base Profiles are all about interoperability. If a service doesn't implement X at all then it won't interoperate 
with a client that expects full Base Profile compliance.  That's all period. We say nothing about claiming OGSA compliance.

So I agree with Dave's proposed resolutions of this item.

Action:

Update

Tom Maguire: 03/07/2005 8:15 PM EST
	Action:	Update artifact_status changed from Closed to Pending

SourceForge Administrator: 03/03/2005 4:30 AM EST
	Comment:	Pending expire
	Action:	Update artifact_status changed from Pending to Closed close_date changed from - to 2005-03-03 03:30:07

Tom Maguire: 03/02/2005 8:52 PM EST
	Action:	Update artifact_status changed from Open to Pending

David Snelling: 01/26/2005 4:20 PM EST

Comment:

Folks,


Neither the GGF nor the OGSA WG can claim that a given implementation is compliant. The institutional infrastructure necessary to test and rule on 
compliance is well beyond what the GGF is set up to provide. Nor is this infrastructure within the current plans. Therefore, the profile is a 
normative statement from the experts in the OGSA WG that if two implementations follow the rules set out in the profile they should interoperate with 
each other. If they don't interoperate, either one or the other implementation is not compliant with the profile (or the profile might be inadequately
 refined).

So the following statements can be made by an implementer to further clarify the functionality of their implementation with respect to 
interoperability.

- This implementation is compliant with all of the OGSA Base Profile V1.0.
- This implementation is compliant with Sections x and y of the OGSA Base Profile V1.0.
- This implementation is compliant with all of the OGSA Base Profile V1.0 and supports the follow extended features of WSRF-RP, ....

Proposed resolutions to this issue:

1) Close it with no action as being out of scope.

2) Add clarifying text, like the above, to the "OGSA profile template description".

Action:

Update

Andreas Savva: 01/24/2005 12:39 AM EST
	Action:	Create

Return

< Previous

Next >