Activity Instance Schema Activity Instance Document Schema Wednesday

OGF IPR Policies Apply • • • “I acknowledge that participation in this meeting

Content • Objectives of the Activity Schema activity • Status Quo of discussion •

Objectives - General JSDL comprises a core Resource Request Language and exists within an

Objectives - Current Work • Activity Instance Schema provides holistic description of activity initiated

Use Case I - Scheduling © 2008 Open Grid Forum 6

Use Case II - Job lifecycle tracking • Track job (and its attributes) throughout

Use Case III - Workflow fault detection © 2008 Open Grid Forum 8

Requirements • See text. . . © 2008 Open Grid Forum 10

Towards Schema • UDAP schema from Next. GRID could be starting point --> Verify

Timeline • Draft document until OGF 25 • • Schema description Normative schema Use

Activity - Status Quo • Focus is on “Compute Activities” • Client defines Activity

Problem Domain - the Activity view • Activity concept is broader than just compute

Problem Domain - the JSDL view JSDL comprises a core Resource Request Language and

Content • • Objectives of the Bo. F Status Quo of activity discussion Problem

UDAP - Activity Definition • Activity: • • • A unit of work A

UDAP - Activity Definition • We take a holistic view of an activity •

UDAP - Concept • The UDAP package can contain any information about an activity,

UDAP Model - Overview • ID and Description • The Record is the core

UDAP Model - Record © 2008 Open Grid Forum 23

UDAP and JSDL <UDAP. . . > <Activity. ID>ID 1</Activity. ID> <Activity. Description Dialect=”JSDL">Example

A word on Resource & Context • “Resource” element in UDAP actually captures the

We proudly present … … Steve Mc. Gough on Grid. SAM … Shahbaz Memon

Discussions since OGF 21 • The UDAP schema and use cases have been discussed

Decisions • Go for a Activity Instance Document schema • Define it high-level, then

Next steps • Collect requirements • Grid. SAM and UNICORE presentations • Discussion during

Post Bo. F situation • Grid. SAM and UNICORE usage scenarios have been presented

Seven questions 1. Is the scope of the proposed group sufficiently focused? 2. Are

Usage Scenarios (brief) • Managed Execution Use Case • Track the general lifecycle of

Full Copyright Notice Copyright (C) Open Grid Forum (2007, 2008). All Rights Reserved. This

Slides: 33

Download presentation

OGF IPR Policies Apply • • • “I acknowledge that participation in this meeting is subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy. ” Intellectual Property Notices Note Well: All statements related to the activities of the OGF and addressed to the OGF are subject to all provisions of Appendix B of GFD-C. 1, which grants to the OGF and its participants certain licenses and rights in such statements. Such statement s include verbal statements in OGF meetings, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to: • • • the OGF plenary session, any OGF working group or portion thereof, the OGF Board of Directors, the GFSG, or any member thereof on behalf of the OGF, the ADCOM, or any member thereof on behalf of the ADCOM, any OGF mailing list, including any group list, or any other list functioning under OGF auspices, the OGF Editor or the document authoring and review process Statements made outside of a OGF meeting, mailing list or other function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an OGF activity, group or function, are not subject to these provisions. Excerpt from Appendix B of GFD-C. 1: ”Where the OGF knows of rights, or claimed rights, the OGF secretariat shall attempt to obtain from the claimant of such rights, a written assurance that upon approval by the GFSG of the relevant OGF document(s), any party will be able to obtain the right to implement, use and distribute the technology or works when implementing, using or distributing technology based upon the specification(s) under openly specified, reasonable, nondiscriminatory terms. The working group or research group proposing the use of the technology with respect to which the proprietary rights are claimed may assist the OGF secretariat in this effort. The results of this procedure shall not affect advancement of document, except that the GFSG may defer approval where a delay may facilitate the obtaining of such assurances. The results wil l, however, be recorded by the OGF Secretariat, and made available. The GFSG may also direct that a summary of the results be included in any GFD published containing the specification. ” OGF Intellectual Property Policies are adapted from the IETF Intellectual Property Policies that support the Internet Standards Process. © 2008 Open Grid Forum 2

Objectives - General JSDL comprises a core Resource Request Language and exists within an environment of other languages like Scheduling Description Language, Job Policy Language, etc. à more requirements, dependencies, etc. wrt to an Activity à Activity Instance Schema to capture those requirements, . . . © 2008 Open Grid Forum 4

Objectives - Current Work • Activity Instance Schema provides holistic description of activity initiated by a JSDL document (think BES) • Includes e. g. • • • Usage and accounting information State information Provenance Security. . . © 2008 Open Grid Forum 5

Use Case II - Job lifecycle tracking • Track job (and its attributes) throughout the entire life cycle of a job. • From point in time where job enters the system. . . • . . . to a point in time where job is not active anymore • Information that should be tracked: • • Submission point Any state changes that occurs Delegation information Resources consumed by the job (including final “accounting”) © 2008 Open Grid Forum 7

Towards Schema • UDAP schema from Next. GRID could be starting point --> Verify against requirements • Schema should capture the “concrete” OGF case • Bring together different specs • Immediate usability • Generalisation maybe later © 2008 Open Grid Forum 11

Activity - Status Quo • Focus is on “Compute Activities” • Client defines Activity using JSDL • Activity is executed on a compute resource • Related OGF specifications • OGSA-BES • JSDL • (GLUE) © 2008 Open Grid Forum 15

Problem Domain - the Activity view • Activity concept is broader than just compute • Think about business scenarios using SLAs • Modelling SLA lifecycle • Creation and Monitoring of SLAs • Evaluation • SLA = “Business Activity” • Comprises compute, but also. . . • . . . data, accounting info, provenance, lifecycle, etc. • This information has to be captured and related to an activity © 2008 Open Grid Forum 16

Problem Domain - the JSDL view JSDL comprises a core Resource Request Language and exists within an environment of other languages like Scheduling Description Language, Job Policy Language, etc. --> more requirements, dependencies, etc. wrt to an Activity © 2008 Open Grid Forum 17

UDAP - Activity Definition • Activity: • • • A unit of work A job A task A data processing operation A data access operation An application execution A Web Service invocation A “thing” you need to do/take care of/execute! …etc. • From the OGSA-BES specification: • “…computational entities such as UNIX or Windows processes, Web Services, or parallel programs—what we call activities…” © 2008 Open Grid Forum 19

UDAP - Activity Definition • We take a holistic view of an activity • We, therefore, consider ALL that there is to know about an activity: • ALL of its requirements • ALL of its dependencies (on data and other activities) • ALL of its contextual information • Topical domain (financial markets, weather forecasting, etc. ) • Security (who owns the activity, who is allowed to run it, etc. ) • SLAs, Qo. S and other related policies • ALL of its monitoring information • Status, history, resource information, accounting, policy conformation etc. © 2008 Open Grid Forum 20

UDAP - Concept • The UDAP package can contain any information about an activity, regardless of the schema used to present that information • The values of the activity information can be updated or appended to reflect the past, present, and future state of the activity • All of the information associated with each activity is contained in a single package • The information in a UDAP package is kept up-to-date for its activity, once it is submitted to and managed within a Grid © 2008 Open Grid Forum 21

UDAP and JSDL <UDAP. . . > <Activity. ID>ID 1</Activity. ID> <Activity. Description Dialect=”JSDL">Example using JSDL</Activity. Description> <Record> <Entry Category="original"> <Time. Stamp>2006 -05 -04 T 18: 13: 51. 0 Z</Time. Stamp> <State>pending</State> <Resource> <jsdl: job. Document>. . . </jsdl: job. Document> </Resource> <Context> <jsdl: scheduling. Policy>. . . </jsdl: scheduling. Policy> <jpl: some. Policy>. . . </jpl: some. Policy> </Context> <Dependency> <wf: some. Workflow. Dependencies>. . . </wf: some. Workflow. Dependencies> </Dependency> </Entry> </Record> <Result> </UDAP> © 2008 Open Grid Forum 24

A word on Resource & Context • “Resource” element in UDAP actually captures the resource request • Can be JSDL • Can be RSL, … • “Context” may contain the security, legal, billing, … etc. context in which the activity is executed • Much broader • Naming should be discussed … © 2008 Open Grid Forum 25

Discussions since OGF 21 • The UDAP schema and use cases have been discussed during JSDL telecons • Current schema seems to be good starting point • Minor issues came up, only major until now: • UDAP schema has no specific element for resource usage © 2008 Open Grid Forum 27

Decisions • Go for a Activity Instance Document schema • Define it high-level, then profile it for specific OGF use cases • JSDL • Usage Records • … • Issues to resolve wrt UDAP schema © 2008 Open Grid Forum 28

Next steps • Collect requirements • Grid. SAM and UNICORE presentations • Discussion during the Bo. F • Discuss requirements in the light of existing schema • Wednesday, 10: 45 (William Dawes) • AOB © 2008 Open Grid Forum 29

Post Bo. F situation • Grid. SAM and UNICORE usage scenarios have been presented • In addition two other usage scenarios have been briefly discussed • Actions: • Decide whether stay within JSDL or form new group • Gather requirements OGF activity instance schema © 2008 Open Grid Forum 30

Seven questions 1. Is the scope of the proposed group sufficiently focused? 2. Are the topics that the group plans to address clear and relevant for the Grid research, development, industrial, implementation, and/or application user community? 3. Will the formation of the group foster (consensus-based) work that would not be done otherwise? 4. Do the group's activities overlap inappropriately with those of another OGF group or to a group active in another organization such as IETF or W 3 C? 5. Are there sufficient interest and expertise in the group's topic, with at least several people willing to expend the effort that is likely to produce significant results over time? 6. Does a base of interested consumers (e. g. , application developers, Grid system implementers, industry partners, end-users) appear to exist for the planned work? 7. Does the OGF have a reasonable role to play in the determination of the technology? © 2008 Open Grid Forum 31

Usage Scenarios (brief) • Managed Execution Use Case • Track the general lifecycle of an activity (Chris? ) • Keep activity delegation information (Dortmund/GSA-RG) • UNICORE Use Case (FZJ) • Grid. SAM (Stephen) © 2008 Open Grid Forum 32

Full Copyright Notice Copyright (C) Open Grid Forum (2007, 2008). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the OGF or its successors or assignees. © 2008 Open Grid Forum 33