Web 2 0 and Grids

Full text

(1)

Web 2.0 and Grids

March 4 2007

Geoffrey Fox

Computer Science, Informatics, Physics Pervasive Technology Laboratories Indiana University Bloomington IN 47401

(2)

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 applicationsGoogle 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

(3)

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

(4)

“Best Web 2.0 Sites” -- 2006

n

Extracted from

http://web2.wsj2.com/

n

Social Networking

n

Start Pages

n

Social Bookmarkin

n

Peer Production News

n

Social Media Sharing

n

Online Storage

(5)

Why Web 2.0 is Useful

n

Captures the incredible development of interactive

Web sites enabling people to create and collaborate

(6)

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 rapidlyRich 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

(7)

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 standardsGrids 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

(8)

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”

(9)

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

(10)

Web 2.0 uses all types of Services

n

Here a

Gadget Mashup

uses a 3 service workflow with

(11)

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

(12)

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

(13)

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

(14)

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)

(15)

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

(16)

Mash

Planet

Web 2.0

Architecture

(17)

Searched on Transit/Transportation Searched on Transit/Transportation

(18)

Grid-style portal as used in Earthquake Grid

(19)

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

(20)

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

(21)

APIs/Mashups per Protocol Distribution

REST SOAP XML-RPC REST,

XML-RPC XML-RPC,REST, SOAP

REST,

SOAP JS Other

(22)

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

(23)

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

(24)

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)

(25)

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

Figure

Updating...

References

Updating...