global grids web 2.0 and globalization
Post on 13-Jan-2015
869 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
11
Global Grids Web 2.0 and Globalization
Indiana UniversityInformatics Colloquium
January 12 2007
Geoffrey Fox
Computer Science, Informatics, PhysicsPervasive Technology Laboratories
Indiana University Bloomington IN 47401
gcf@indiana.eduhttp://www.infomall.org
22
Abstract We discuss the role of Web 2.0 and Cyberinfrastructure (also
called e-infrastructure and implemented by Grid technology) in a variety of global and globalization activities.
These include the linking of researchers and data world wide in many fields; new generations of digital libraries and tools like Google Scholar; study of ice-sheets at the poles and the dramatic impact of Global warming; the study of earthquakes across the Pacific ocean; the linking of apparel manufacturers in Asia to designers in different continents and the command and control system for the Department of Defense.
Conversely Web 2.0 and Cyberinfrastructure are inherently democratic and support the broadening of communities involved in science and business. • They allow members of the Navajo Nation to participate in society and
commerce from their homeland while many see this infrastructure as allowing broader participation in Science. We discuss recent efforts to implement these dreams!
33
Why Cyberinfrastructure Useful Supports distributed science – data, people, computers Exploits Internet technology (Web2.0) adding (via Grid
technology) management, security, supercomputers etc. It has two aspects: parallel – low latency (microseconds)
between nodes and distributed – highish latency (milliseconds) between nodes
Parallel needed to get high performance on individual 3D simulations, data analysis etc.; must decompose problem
Distributed aspect integrates already distinct components Cyberinfrastructure is in general a distributed collection of
parallel systems Cyberinfrastructure is made of services (usually Web services)
that are “just” programs or data sources packaged for distributed access
44
e-moreorlessanything and Cyberinfrastructure
‘e-Science is about global collaboration in key areas of science, and the next generation of infrastructure that will enable it.’ from its inventor John Taylor Director General of Research Councils UK, Office of Science and Technology
e-Science is about developing tools and technologies that allow scientists to do ‘faster, better or different’ research
Similarly e-Business captures an emerging view of corporations as dynamic virtual organizations linking employees, customers and stakeholders across the world. • The growing use of outsourcing is one example
The Grid or Web 2.0 (Enterprise 2.0) provides the information technology e-infrastructure for e-moreorlessanything.
A deluge of data of unprecedented and inevitable size must be managed and understood.
People (see Web 2.0), computers, data and instruments must be linked.
On demand assignment of experts, computers, networks and storage resources must be supported
5
Virtual Observatory Astronomy GridIntegrate Experiments
Radio Far-Infrared Visible
Visible + X-ray
Dust Map
Galaxy Density Map
66
Grid Capabilities for Science Open technologies for any large scale distributed system that is adopted by
industry, many sciences and many countries (including UK, EU, USA, Asia)• Security, Reliability, Management and state standards
Service and messaging specifications User interfaces via portals and portlets virtualizing to desktops, email,
PDA’s etc.• ~20 TeraGrid Science Gateways (their name for portals)• OGCE Portal technology effort led by Indiana
Uniform approach to access distributed (super)computers supporting single (large) jobs and spawning lots of related jobs
Data and meta-data architecture supporting real-time and archives as well as federation• Links to Semantic web and annotation
Grid (Web service) workflow with standards and several successful instantiations (such as Taverna and MyLead)
Many Earth science grids including ESG (DoE), GEON, LEAD, SCEC, SERVO; LTER and NEON for Environment• http://www.nsf.gov/od/oci/ci-v7.pdf
Old and New (Web 2.0) Community Tools e-mail and list-serves are oldest and best used Kazaa, Instant Messengers, Skype, Napster, BitTorrent for P2P
Collaboration – text, audio-video conferencing, files del.icio.us, Connotea, Citeulike, Bibsonomy, Biolicious manage
shared bookmarks MySpace, YouTube, Bebo, Hotornot, Facebook, or similar sites
allow you to create (upload) community resources and share them; Friendster, LinkedIn create networks• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites
Writely, Wikis and Blogs are powerful specialized shared document systems
ConferenceXP and WebEx share general applications Google Scholar tells you who has cited your papers while
publisher sites tell you about co-authors• Windows Live Academic Search has similar goals
Note sharing resources creates (implicit) communities• Social network tools study graphs to both define communities
and extract their properties
88
“Best Web 2.0 Sites” -- 2006 Extracted from http://web2.wsj2.com/ Social Networking
Start Pages
Social Bookmarking
Peer Production News
Social Media Sharing
Online Storage (Computing)
99
Why Web 2.0 is Useful Captures the incredible development of interactive
Web sites enabling people to create and collaborate
1010
Web 2.0 v Grid I Web 2.0 allows people to nurture the Internet Cloud and such
people got Time’s person of year award Platt in his Blog (courtesy Hinchcliffe
http://web2.wsj2.com/the_state_of_web_20.htm) identifies key Web 2.0 features as:• The Web and all its connected devices as one global platform of reusable
services and data• Data consumption and remixing from all sources, particularly user
generated data• Continuous and seamless update of software and data, often very rapidly• Rich and interactive user interfaces• Architecture of participation that encourages user contribution
Whereas Grids support Internet scale Distributed Services• Maybe Grids focus on (number of) Services (there aren’t many scientists)
and Web 2.0 focuses on number of People• But they are basically same!
Web 2.0 v Grid II Web 2.0 has a set of major services like GoogleMaps or Flickr
but the world is composing Mashups that make new composite services• End-point standards are set by end-point owners• Many different protocols covering a variety of de-facto standards
Grids have a set of major software systems like Condor and Globus and a different world is extending with custom services and linking with workflow
Popular Web 2.0 technologies are PHP, JavaScript, JSON, AJAX and REST with “Start Page” e.g. (Google Gadgets) interfaces
Popular Grid technologies are Apache Axis, BPEL WSDL and SOAP with portlet interfaces
Robustness of Grids demanded by the Enterprise? Not so clear that Web 2.0 won’t eventually dominate other
application areas and with Enterprise 2.0 it’s invading Grids
1212
Mashups v Workflow? Mashup Tools are reviewed at http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=63 Workflow Tools are reviewed by Gannon and Fox
http://grids.ucs.indiana.edu/ptliupages/publications/Workflow-overview.pdf Both include
scripting in PHP, Python, sh etc. as both implement distributed programming at level of services
Mashups use all types of service interfaces and do not have the potential robustness (security) of Grid service approach
Typically “pure” HTTP (REST)
1313
Grid Workflow Datamining in Earth Science Work with Scripps Institute Grid services controlled by workflow process real time
data from ~70 GPS Sensors in Southern California
Streaming DataSupport
TransformationsData Checking
Hidden MarkovDatamining (JPL)
Display (GIS)
NASA GPS
Earthquake
Real Time
Archival
1414
Web 2.0 uses all types of Services Here a Gadget Mashup uses a 3 service workflow with
a JavaScript Gadget Client
Web 2.0 APIs http://www.programmableweb.com/apis currently (Jan
10 2007) 356 Web 2.0 APIs with GoogleMaps the most used in Mashups
This site acts as a “UDDI” for Web 2.0
The List of Web 2.0 API’s Each site has API
and its features Divided into
broad categories Only a few used a
lot (31 API’s used in more than 10 mashups)
RSS feed of new APIs
Mashup MatrixMashups using GoogleMaps
18
GIS Grid of “Indiana Map” and ~10 Indiana counties with accessible Map (Feature) Servers from different vendors. Grids federate different data repositories (cf Astronomy VO federating different observatory collections)
Indiana Map Grid(Mashup)
19
Browser +Google Map API
Cass County Map Server
(OGC Web Map Server)
Hamilton County Map Server(AutoDesk)
Marion County Map Server
(ESRI ArcIMS)
Browser client fetches image tiles for the bounding box using Google Map API. Tile Server
Cache Server
Adapter Adapter Adapter
Tile Server requests map tiles at all zoom levels with all layers. These are converted to uniform projection, indexed, and stored. Overlapping images are combined.
Must provide adapters for each Map Server type .
The cache server fulfills Google map calls with cached tiles at the requested bounding box that fill the bounding box.
Google Maps Server
20
Mash Planet
Web 2.0 Architecture
http://www.imagine-it.org/mashplanetDisplay too large to be a Gadget
21
Searched on Transit/TransportationSearched on Transit/Transportation
2222
Grid-style portal as used in Earthquake GridThe Portal is built from portlets
– providing user interface fragments for each service that are composed into the full interface – uses OGCE technology as does planetary science VLAB portal with University of Minnesota
2323
Portlets v. Google Gadgets Portals for Grid Systems are built using portlets with
software like GridSphere integrating these on the server-side into a single web-page
Google (at least) offers the Google sidebar and Google home page which support Web 2.0 services and do not use a server side aggregator
Google is more user friendly! The many Web 2.0 competitions is an interesting model
for promoting development in the world-wide distributed collection of Web 2.0 developers
I guess Web 2.0 model will win!
Note the many competitions powering Web 2.0 Mashup Development
Typical Google Gadget Structure
… Lots of HTML and JavaScript </Content> </Module>Portlets build User Interfaces by combining fragments in a standalone Java ServerGoogle Gadgets build User Interfaces by combining fragments with JavaScript on the client
Google Gadgets are an example of Start Page technologySee http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=8
2525
So there is more or less no architecture difference between Grids and Web 2.0 and we will use e-infrastructure or Cyberinfrastructure to refer to either architecture
We should bring Web 2.0 People capabilities to Grids (eScience, Enterprises)
We should use robust Grid (motivated by Enterprise) technologies in Mashups
See Enterprise 2.0 discussion at http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/
2626
Grids/Web 2.0 enable distributed activities to be effective
Enable Generalized Outsourcing – Enterprises can be split with components (centers of expertise) separated• Software is easiest as “all electronic” but also can link• Apparel Industry i.e. Manufacturing• Sports training
Change model for Publishers and Libraries as current model where publishers own material fits poorly with technology as prevents innovative access
Enable new communities to contribute to research, education and commerce• The advantages of R1 powerhouses with concentrated expertise are
reduced by electronic linkage of distributed new contributors• The Navajo communities can be integrated and participate in global
activities from their homeland Enable new generation of open powerful distributed systems
supporting• Command and Control (Crisis Management in civilian application)• Study of impact of Global warming on polar regions• Integration of sensors and simulation for Earthquake prediction
2727
Much of the world’s manufacturing industry is globalized and the apparel/textile industry is typical
We are working with Hong Kong Textile Industry to link the Asian manufacturers with design/marketing/purchase functions elsewhere (USA, Europe)
Need to exchange designs, available fabrics and discussions
Good example of e-infrastructure enabling specialization in one geographical area to thrive
Software and digital animation outsourcing are other good examples
eApparel
2828
eSports? YouTube illustrates asynchronous
video sharing and video conferencing illustrates synchronous video sharing
One can link trainers (or spectators) and athletes (exercisers) globally with real time video supporting video and text annotation
Technically hard due to network issues and allowing real-time playing of annotated video
Exploring with China and HPER Note IU could export coaching in
Soccer, Basketball etc Example of e-infrastructure
supporting geographically distributed specialization
29
ExistingUser Interface
Semantic Scholars Grid
etc.
Google Scholar
ManuscriptCentral
Science.gov
Windows Live Academic Search
Citeseer
CMT Conference
Management
Existing Documentbased Tools
Web serviceWrappers
New Document-enhancedResearch Tools
Integration/EnhancementUser Interface
Community Tools
Generic Document Tools
MyResearchDatabase
Bibliographic Database
Export:RSS, BibtexEndnote etc.
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Bibsonomy
BioliciousPubChem
PubMed
Traditional GridCyberinfrastructure
MySpace
Web 2.0
MASHUP
3030
Delicious Semantic Web/Grid http://del.icio.us purchased by Yahoo for ~$30M http://www.CiteULike.org http://www.connotea.org (Nature) Associate metadata with Bookmarks specified by URL’s, DOI’s
(Digital Object Identifiers) Users add comments and keywords (called tags) Users are linked together into groups (communities) Information such as title and authors extracted automatically
from some sites (PubMed, ACM, IEEE, Wiley etc.) Bibtex like additional information in CiteULike This is perhaps de facto Semantic Web – remarkable for its
simplicity We built Mashup linking to del.icio.us, CiteULike, Connotea
allowing exchange of tags between sites and between local repositories
Repositories (MyResearch) also link to local sources (PubsOnline) and Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Live
3131
del.icio.us Tags
Download toLocal System
del.icio.us Tags
3232
General Document Semantic Analysis Citeseer and Google Scholar scour the Internet and analyze documents
for incidental metadata
• Title, author and institution of documents
• Citations with their own metadata allowing one to match to other documents
These capabilities are sure to become more powerful and to be extended
• Give “Citation Index” in real time
• Tell you all authors of all papers that cite a paper that cites you etc. (Note it’s a small world so don’t go too far in link analysis)
• Tell you all citations of all papers in a workshop
• Helps journal editor by suggesting referees based on document analysis or by doing a “plagiarism” analysis by scoring comparison with other Internet documents
3333
Domain Specific Semantic Document Analysis It is natural to develop core document Services such as those
used in Citeseer/Google Scholar but applied to “your” documents of interest that may not have been processed yet
• As just submitted to a conference perhaps These tools can help form useful lists such as authors of all cited
or submitted papers to a journal OSCAR3 (from Peter Murray-Rust’s group at Cambridge)
augments the application independent “core” metadata (Title, authors, institutions, Citations) with a list of all chemical terms
• This tool is a Service that can be applied to “your” document or to a set of documents harvested in some fashion
• Luis Rocha has developed related ideas for Biology
• Other fields have natural application specific metadata and OSCAR like tools can be developed for them
This is another Semantic Scholar Grid Tool
3434
OSCAR3 Chemistry Document analysis
It detects “magic” chemical strings in text and then• Stores them as
metadata associated with document
Queries ChemInformatics repositories to tell you lots of information about identified compounds
Tells you which other documents have this compound
3535
Initial Results from OSCAR on PubMed We have a small sample (100) of full text Chemistry papers selected at
random from 15 years of PubMed with over 5 million abstracts• OSCAR3 generates 4.17 compound names per abstract• and 36.7 compound names per full text• 555,007 PubMed abstracts of 2005 – 2006 (part) used for Abstracts (on
Big Red) Illustrates how much knowledge journal publishers are hiding from us
CICC Chemical Informatics Cyberinfrastructure Collaboratory
PubMedDatabase
OSCARText
Analysis
POV-RayParallel
Rendering
Initial 3DStructure
Calculation
ToxicityFiltering
ClusterGrouping
Docking
MolecularMechanics
Calculations
Quantum Mechanics
Calculations
IU’sVaruna
Database
NIHPubChemDatabaseNIH
PubChemDatabase
Product databases are wrapped with Web service interfaces and are suitable for inclusion in Taverna workflows.
PubChemDatabase
MOADDatabase
Integrating document (OSCAR) and conventional services on the IU Big Red Supercomputer
3737
Knowledge Model for Scientific Journals There are classes of scientific journals
• Large circulation society journals effectively subsidized by fees of professional society membership; circulations can be more than 10,000
• “Popular” magazine style journals• A few prestigious journals• Many specialized journals publishing archival refereed papers with
circulations from one hundred to a few thousand The specialized journals largely sell a mix of paper and (a
growing number of) electronic subscriptions to libraries and very few individuals subscribe• Access is limited and expensive• Even if one subscribes, one is often restricted on the number of full text
papers one can access• Collections like PubMed only include abstracts
Systems like OSCAR3, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic Live and Citeseer cannot fully analyze knowledge in papers unless get access to full text
Current publishing model hindering and not helping science Similar discussion for journal papers and research data
3838
Publishing Business Model in the Internet Age Journal publishing currently has a business model where the
price reflects neither the cost nor the value-added Publishers currently do not have significant internal expertise in
new approaches/technologies to drive new business models However much is outsourced already and so one can outsource
to organizations with new expertise e.g. to those that know Web 2.0 rather than putting ink on paper
There is no clear new business model but plausible that current model will not survive for that long • So need to change even if less lucrative or success unclear
Note libraries provide funds to publishers and libraries will continue• Some think that one role of university libraries will be curation of data
produced by university faculty and this will move naturally to different business models
3939
Strengths of Current Publishing Model Permanent “guaranteed” archival storage but there are
other approaches such as Amazon S3 to this Uniform look and feel and copyediting to remove
language errors.• Useful but not so valuable that we can trade access for this. • In particular can only correct some language errors as only a
subject expert can really rewrite in good grammar and expression
Refereeing of a quality implied by the journal and the editorial board• Most important strength but business model does not directly
reflect this as only a small part of subscription price goes to editorial function
• For most papers cost of refereeing much less than other costs of producing paper
• Not clear why viewer should pay for refereeing Large amount of pre-existing papers from old issues of
journals
4040
Pressures on Current Publishing Model Mandated open access to scholarly work funded by government
• Cornyn-Lieberman bill in the US
• NIH PubMed Central requires deposited of full text of articles after a length of time
Electronic access to publisher sites is not especially good Division of articles into journals and publishers is not very
helpful today where technology does not care about location of information• Location is just a rather simple annotation (meta data) specifying aspects
of provenance of article
Publishing on the Internet is not a valuable service and has been addressed by Web servers in general and by Web 2.0 in attractive ways
Essentially nobody reads or even has access to paper copies of journal• Not clear it is useful to print specialized journals on paper
4141
Scholarly Research Community Site Best product should allow one to make best use of knowledge in scholarly
publications and data but not be tied to “fragile”” attractive services• So preserve data (annotations, comments, people) managed by services separately
Should integrate journal and conference publications and services Should contain integrated or support outside services for curation,
annotation, analysis and search Content is scholarly journals and data Services include
• Share data and set up communities• Annotation as in Connotes, CiteULike, Del.icio.us• Semantic analysis for citations, authors, chemical compounds etc.• Biolicious style custom classifications including added value contacts• Search as in Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic Live• MySpace/Facebook/LinkedIn style services for existing or new contacts• Support of conference and journal refereeing• Other conference/journal services such as registration, advertising• Integration with research such as electronic log books• Internal integration e.g. Authors in citations are linked to community• Links to more general document services such as:
Online Office style Tools WebEx type collaboration
4242
Business Model for Scholarly Journal/Research Community Site
One can charge for advertising, better content, better services or better implementation
Natural is to start with a basic free content and services with advertising. • Content must be free eventually “by law”• Services will have open source versions anyway so counter this with free
basic services One could use page charge model for charging for refereeing. One charges user for features that add value. These include:
• Better or better implemented community/digital library services• Premium Content possibly contracted by site owner
Problem with Advertising Business model: Audience specialized (i.e. small) but upscale
Problem with charging for Community Tools: Competing with free software but likely can offer much better service than free software just as WebEx does fine in spite of free VNC
43
Basic Idea of Cyberinfrastructure for MSI’s• Cyberinfrastructure is critical to all involved in Research
and Education• Cyberinfrastructure is intrinsically democratic supporting
broad participation• MSI’s (Minority-Serving Institutions) should lead MSI
integration with Cyberinfrastructure to ensure it is truly useful for them and consistent with goals and constraints
• One should guide the projects with experts• One should aim at scalable (systemic) approaches• Goal is peer collaborations involving all institutions of
higher education
44
Some Key Organizations in MSI-CIEC• MSI-CIEC Minority-Serving Institution Cyberinfrastructure (CI)
Empowerment Coalition involves UHD, IU, AIHEC, HACU, NAFEO
• UHD University of Houston Downtown as a major Hispanic Serving Institution
• Alliance for Equity in Higher Education. Working with the Alliance will have systemic impact on at least 335 Minority Serving Institutions covered by the
• AIHEC American Indian Higher Education Consortium)• HACU Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities• NAFEO National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher
Education• Indiana University is correctly not a very key organization here!
We advise and will build a Web 2.0 MSI Portal with 3 NSF and one (Lumina) foundation proposal
45
Minority Serving Institutions and the Grid• Historically the R1 Research University powerhouses dominated
research due to their concentration of expertise• Cyberinfrastructure allows others to participate in same way it
supports distributed open source software and distributed Web 2.0• Navajo Nation (Colorado Plateau covering over 25,000 square
miles in northeast Arizona, northwest New Mexico, and southeast Utah) with 110 communities and over 40% unemployment. Building a wireless grid for education, healthcare
• http://www.win-hec.org/ World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium
• Cyberinfrastructure allows Nations to preserve their geographical identity but participate fully with world class jobs and research
• Some 335 MSI’s in Alliance have similar hopes for Cyberinfrastructure to jump start their advancement!
46
Example: Setting up a Polar CI-Grid• The North and South poles are melting with potential huge
environmental impact• As a result of MSI meetings, I am working with MSI ECSU in
North Carolina and Kansas University to design and set up a Polar Grid (Cyberinfrastructure)
• This is a network of computers, sensors (on robots and satellites), data and people aimed at understanding science of ice-sheets and impact of global warming
• We have changed the 100,000 year Glacier cycle into a ~50 year cycle; the field has increased dramatically in importance and interest
• Good area to get involved in as not so much established work
Typical Illustration of effect of Climate Change on Greenland: Velocity of Jakobshavn from 1995 to 2005 as a function of distance from its end
47
48
4949
PolarGrid Important Polar Grid Cyberinfrastructure components
include• Managed data from sensors and satellites • Data analysis such as SAR processing – possibly with parallel
algorithms• Electromagnetic simulations (currently commercial codes) to
design instrument antennas• 3D simulations of ice-sheets (glaciers) with non-uniform
meshes• GIS Geographical Information Systems
Also need capabilities present in many Grids• Portal i.e. Science Gateway• Submitting multiple sequential or parallel jobs
Power/Bandwidth Challenged Expedition Grids
50FF
B
F
F
B
F
F
BReal Time Monitor
Real Time Monitor
Archival – High Latency
Archival – High Latency
Low Bandwidth
Low Bandwidth
Adaptor
layer
Prototype Base/Field Grid
Other Polar Sensors andSensor Aggregators
(Non-polar and Polar Sites)
Polar Expeditions
IU
Field Base Camps
Educationand Training
Core simulationand
Data analysis
OSG
TeraGrid
Existing CRESIS
ECSUHaskell
IU
Existing IU
ECSU
5151
APEC Cooperation for Earthquake Simulation ACES is a seven year-long collaboration among scientists
interested in earthquake and tsunami predication• iSERVO is Infrastructure to support
work of ACES
• SERVOGrid is (completed) US Grid that is a prototype of iSERVO
• http://www.quakes.uq.edu.au/ACES/
Chartered under APEC – the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation of 21 economies
52
a
Topography1 km
Stress Change
Earthquakes
PBO
Site-specific IrregularScalar Measurements Constellations for Plate
Boundary-Scale Vector Measurements
aaIce Sheets
Volcanoes
Long Valley, CA
Northridge, CA
Hector Mine, CA
Greenland
5353
Earth/Atmosphere Grids built as Grids of (library) Grids
Ice Sheet Sensors, SAR, Filters, EM,
Glacier Simulations
Physical Network
Registry Metadata
Earthquake Data, Filters &
Simulation Services
Earthquake SERVOGrid
Ice Sheet PolarGrid
… Tornado Grid …
Data Access/Storage
Security WorkflowNotification Messaging
Portals Visualization GridCollaboration Grid
Sensor Grid Compute GridGIS Grid
Core Grid Services
5454
Net-Centric Grids DoD has built the Global Information Grid (GiG) and
developed a target architecture NCOW (Net-Centric Operations and Warfare)
There are nine core services NCES and various interesting principles such as OHIO (Only Handle Information once)
The NCES can be mapped into Grid and Web Services DoD Grids are very similar to sensor rich science
applications like the polar, tornado (LEAD) and earthquake problems
DoD Command and Control similar to civilian Emergency Response and Crisis Management
55
DoD Net-Centric Core Enterprise Services Core Enterprise Services Service Functionality
NCES1: Enterprise Services Management (ESM)
including life-cycle management
NCES2: Information Assurance (IA)/Security
Supports confidentiality, integrity and availability. Implies reliability and autonomic features
NCES3: Messaging Synchronous or asynchronous cases
NCES4: Discovery Searching data and services
NCES5: Mediation Includes translation, aggregation, integration, correlation, fusion, brokering publication, and other transformations for services and data. Possibly agents
NCES6: Collaboration Provision and control of sharing with emphasis on synchronous real-time services
NCES7: User Assistance Includes automated and manual methods of optimizing the user GiG experience (user agent)
NCES8: Storage Retention, organization and disposition of all forms of data
NCES9: Application Provisioning, operations and maintenance of applications.
56
DoD Core Features/Service Areas IService or Feature WS-* GS-* NCES
(DoD)Comments
A: Broad Principles
FS1: Use SOA: Service Oriented Arch.
WS1 Core Service Architecture, Build Grids on Web Services. Industry best practice
FS2: Grid of Grids Distinctive Strategy for legacy subsystems and modular architecture
B: Core Services
FS3: Service Internet, Messaging
WS2 NCES3 Streams/Sensors. Team
FS4: Notification WS3 NCES3 JMS, MQSeries.
FS5 Workflow WS4 NCES5 Grid Programming
FS6 : Security WS5 GS7 NCES2 Grid-Shib, Permis Liberty Alliance ...
FS7: Discovery WS6 NCES4 UDDI
FS8: System Metadata & State
WS7 Globus MDSSemantic Grid, WS-Context
FS9: Management WS8 GS6 NCES1 CIM
FS10: Policy WS9 ECS
57
The Core Feature/Service Areas IIService or Feature WS-* GS-* NCES Comments
B: Core Services (Continued)
FS11: Portals and User assistance
WS10 NCES7 Portlets JSR168, NCES Capability Interfaces
FS12: Computing GS3
FS13: Data and Storage GS4 NCES8 NCOW Data StrategyFederation at data/information layer major research area; CGL leading role
FS14: Information GS4 JBI for DoD, WFS for OGC
FS15: Applications and User Services
GS2 NCES9 Standalone ServicesProxies for jobs
FS16: Resources and Infrastructure
GS5 Ad-hoc networks
FS17: Collaboration and Virtual Organizations
GS7 NCES6 XGSP, Shared Web Service ports
FS18: Scheduling and matching of Services and Resources
GS3 Current work only addresses scheduling “batch jobs”. Need networks and services
top related