Web 2.0 and Grids
March 4 2007
Geoffrey Fox
Computer Science, Informatics, Physics Pervasive Technology Laboratories Indiana University Bloomington IN 47401
Old and New (Web 2.0) Community Tools
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
• http://www.slideshare.net http://www.gliffy.com
Google documents, 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
Kazaa, Instant Messengers, Skype, Napster, BitTorrent for P2P
Collaboration – text, audio-video conferencing, files
Note sharing resources creates (implicit) communities
Connotea
Connotea
is run
by Nature and
is useful for
collecting
research links
Here is 177
parallel
computing links
selected on
Meeting
Useful
extension of
“Best Web 2.0 Sites” -- 2006
n
Extracted from
http://web2.wsj2.com/
nSocial Networking
n
Start Pages
n
Social Bookmarkin
n
Peer Production News
n
Social Media Sharing
n
Online Storage
Why Web 2.0 is Useful
n
Captures the incredible development of interactive
Web sites enabling people to create and collaborate
Web 2.0 v Grid I
n Web 2.0 allows people to nurture the Internet Cloud and such
people got Time’s person of year award
n 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
n 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
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
Mashups v Workflow?
n Mashup Tools are reviewed at http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=63 n Workflow Tools are reviewed by Gannon and Fox
http://grids.ucs.indiana.edu/ptliupages/publications/Workflow-overview.pdf
n Both include
scripting in PHP, Python, sh etc. as both implement distributed
programming at level of services
n Mashups use all
types of service
interfaces and do not have the potential
robustness (security) of Grid service
approach
n Typically “pure”
Grid Workflow Datamining in Earth Science
n Work with Scripps Institute
n Grid services controlled by workflow process real time
data from ~70 GPS Sensors in Southern California
Streaming Data Support
Transformations Data Checking
Hidden Marko Datamining (JPL)
Display (GIS)
NASA GPS
Earthquake
Real Time Archival
Web 2.0 uses all types of Services
n
Here a
Gadget Mashup
uses a 3 service workflow with
Web 2.0 APIs
http://www.programmableweb.com/apis
currently
(March 3 2007) 388 Web 2.0 APIs with GoogleMaps the
most used in Mashups
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 (34 API’s used
in more than 10
mashups)
RSS feed of new
3 more Mashups
each day
For a total of 1609
March 3 2007
Note ClearForest
runs Semantic Web Services Mashup
competitions (not workflow
competitions)
Some Mashup
types: aggregators, search aggregators, visualizers, mobile, maps, games
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)
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
Mash
Planet
Web 2.0
Architecture
Searched on Transit/Transportation Searched on Transit/Transportation
Grid-style portal as used in Earthquake Grid
Portlets v. Google Gadgets
n
Portals for Grid Systems are built using portlets with
software like GridSphere integrating these on the
server-side into a single web-page
n
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
n
Google is more user friendly!
n
The many Web 2.0 competitions is an interesting model
for promoting development in the world-wide
distributed collection of Web 2.0 developers
n
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 Server
Google Gadgets are an example of Start Page technolog
APIs/Mashups per Protocol Distribution
REST SOAP XML-RPC REST,
XML-RPC XML-RPC,REST, SOAP
REST,
SOAP JS Other
HTTP v SOAP v WS-* v Grid
Quote from user trying to use
ClearForest
SOAP API
when first released:
• “How about a REST interface or at least a simpler web
interface with a GET or POST form (minus the frames). This would be a preferable option for many mashup environments, compared to SOAP.”
• ClearForest offered a REST API within the week.
Microsoft DSS
is an interesting high performance
service infrastructure supporting SOAP and HTTP
htt
p://msdn.microsoft.com/robotics/.
• Runs well on multicore as well as distributed systems
Mashups
can support
multiple protocols
but
Timing of HP Opteron Multicore as a function of number of simultaneous two-way service messages processed (November 2006 DSS Release)
Measurements of Axis 2 shows about 500 microseconds – DSS is substantially faster
So there is more or less no architecture
difference between Grids and Web 2.0 and we
can build e-infrastructure or
Cyberinfrastructure with either architecture
(or mix and match)
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/
Mashups are workflow (and vice versa)
OGF Activities
n
http://www.semanticgrid.org/OGF/ogf19/
n
White paper on Web 2.0 and Grids
• Use Web 2.0 Services like YouTube, MySpace, Maps
• Build e(Cyber)infrastructure with Web 2.0 Technologies like
Ajax, JSON, Gadgets
n
Two Web 2.0 OGF21 workshops on
• Commercial Web 2.0 (Catlett)
• Web 2.0 and Grids (De Roure, Fox, Gentzsch, Kielmann) • Sessions (each one invited plus contributed papers) on:
n Implications of Web2.0 on eScience
n Implications of Web2.0 on OGSA (Grids)
n Implications of Web2.0 on Enterprise
n Implications of Web2.0 on Digital Libraries/repositories