Global Grids Web 2 0 and Globalization

Global Grids Web 2.0 and

Globalization

Indiana University

Informatics Colloquium January 12 2007

Geoffrey Fox

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

Abstract

n 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.

n 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.

n 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!

Why Cyberinfrastructure Useful

n Supports distributed science – data, people, computers n Exploits Internet technology (Web2.0) adding (via Grid

technology) management, security, supercomputers etc.

n It has two aspects: parallel – low latency (microseconds)

between nodes and distributed – highish latency (milliseconds) between nodes

n Parallel needed to get high performance on individual 3D

simulations, data analysis etc.; must decompose problem

n Distributed aspect integrates already distinct components n Cyberinfrastructure is in general a distributed collection of

parallel systems

n Cyberinfrastructure is made of services (usually Web

services) that are “just” programs or data sources packaged for distributed access

e-moreorlessanything and

Cyberinfrastructure

n ‘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

n e-Science is about developing tools and technologies that allow

scientists to do ‘faster, better or different’ research

n 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

n The Grid or Web 2.0 (Enterprise 2.0) provides the information

technology e-infrastructure for e-moreorlessanything.

n A deluge of data of unprecedented and inevitable size must be

managed and understood.

n People (see Web 2.0), computers, data and instruments must be

linked.

n On demand assignment of experts, computers, networks and

storage resources must be supported

Virtual Observatory Astronomy Gri

Integrate Experiments

Radio Far-Infrared Visible

Visible + X-ray

Dust Map

Galaxy Density Map

Grid Capabilities for Science

n 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

n Service and messaging specifications

n 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

n Uniform approach to access distributed (super)computers supporting single

(large) jobs and spawning lots of related jobs

n Data and meta-data architecture supporting real-time and archives as well

as federation

• Links to Semantic web and annotation

n Grid (Web service) workflow with standards and several successful

instantiations (such as Taverna and MyLead)

n 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

“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

(Computing)

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

• 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

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”

HTTP (REST)

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

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

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

Mashup Matrix

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

http://www.imagine -it.org/mashplanet Display too large to be a Gadget

Searched on Transit/Transportation Searched on Transit/Transportation

Grid-style portal as used in Earthquake Grid

The 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

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 build User Interfaces by combining fragments with JavaScript on the client

Google Gadgets are an example of Start Page technolog

So there is more or less no

architecture difference between

Grids and Web 2.0 and we will use

e-infrastructure or Cybere-infrastructure

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

Grids/Web 2.0 enable distributed

activities to be effective

n 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

n Change model for Publishers and Libraries as current model

where publishers own material fits poorly with technology as prevents innovative access

n 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

n 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

n

Much of the world’s

manufacturing

industry is

globalized

and the apparel/textile industry is typical

n

We are working with

Hong Kong Textile Industry

to

link the Asian manufacturers with

design/marketing/purchase functions elsewhere (USA,

Europe)

n

Need to exchange designs, available fabrics and

discussions

n

Good example of

e-infrastructure

enabling

specialization in one geographical area to thrive

n

Software

and

digital animation

outsourcing are other

good examples

eApparel

eSports?

n YouTube illustrates asynchronous

video sharing and video conferencing illustrates synchronous video sharing

n One can link trainers (or spectators)

and athletes (exercisers) globally with real time video supporting video and text annotation

n Technically hard due to network

issues and allowing real-time playing of annotated video

n Exploring with China and HPER n Note IU could export coaching in

Soccer, Basketball etc

n Example of e-infrastructure

supporting geographically distributed specialization

Existing User Interface

Semantic Scholars Grid

etc. Google Scholar Manuscript Central Science.gov Windows Live Academic Search Citeseer CMT Conferenc Management Existing Documen based Tools Web servic Wrappers New Document-enhanced Research Tools Integration Enhancement User Interface Community Tools Generic Document Tools

Delicious Semantic Web/Grid

n http://del.icio.us purchased by Yahoo for ~$30M n http://www.CiteULike.org

n http://www.connotea.org (Nature)

n Associate metadata with Bookmarks specified by URL’s, DOI’s

(Digital Object Identifiers)

n Users add comments and keywords (called tags)

n Users are linked together into groups (communities)

n Information such as title and authors extracted automatically

from some sites (PubMed, ACM, IEEE, Wiley etc.)

n Bibtex like additional information in CiteULike

n This is perhaps de facto Semantic Web – remarkable for its

simplicity

n We built Mashup linking to del.icio.us, CiteULike, Connotea

allowing exchange of tags between sites and between local repositories

n Repositories (MyResearch) also link to local sources

(PubsOnline) and Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Live

del.icio.us Tags

Download to Local System

del.icio.us Tags

General Document Semantic Analysis

for incidental metadata

• Title, author and institution of documents

• Citations with their own metadata allowing one to match to other

documents

n 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

Domain Specific Semantic Document

Analysis

n 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

n These tools can help form useful lists such as authors of all cited

or submitted papers to a journal

n 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

n This is another Semantic Scholar Grid Tool

OSCAR3 Chemistry

Document analysis

n It detects “magic”

chemical strings in text and then

• Stores them as

metadata associated with document

n Queries

ChemInformatics

repositories to tell you lots of information

about identified compounds

n Tells you which other

documents have this compound

Initial Results from OSCAR on PubMed

n 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)

n Illustrates how much knowledge journal publishers are hiding from us

CICC Chemical Informatics Cyberinfrastructure

Collaboratory

Product databases are wrapped with Web service interfaces and are suitable for inclusion in Taverna workflows.

PubChem Database

MOAD Database

Integrating document (OSCAR) and conventional services on the IU Big Red Supercomputer

Knowledge Model for Scientific Journals

n 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

n 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

n Systems like OSCAR3, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic

Live and Citeseer cannot fully analyze knowledge in papers unless get access to full text

n Current publishing model hindering and not helping science n Similar discussion for journal papers and research data

Publishing Business Model in the Internet

Age

n Journal publishing currently has a business model where the

price reflects neither the cost nor the value-added

n Publishers currently do not have significant internal expertise in

new approaches/technologies to drive new business models

n 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

n 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

n 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

Strengths of Current Publishing Model

n

Permanent “guaranteed”

archival storage

but there are

other approaches such as Amazon S3 to this

n

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

n

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

n

Large amount of

pre-existing papers

from old issues of

journals

Pressures on Current Publishing Model

n 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

n Electronic access to publisher sites is not especially good n 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

n 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

n Essentially nobody reads or even has access to paper copies of

journal

• Not clear it is useful to print specialized journals on paper

Scholarly Research Community Site

publications and data but not be tied to “fragile”” attractive services

• So preserve data (annotations, comments, people) managed by services separately n Should integrate journal and conference publications and services

n Should contain integrated or support outside services for curation, annotation, analysis and search

n Content is scholarly journals and data n 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:

n Online Office style Tools n WebEx type collaboration

Business Model for Scholarly

Journal/Research Community Site

n One can charge for advertising, better content, better services or

better implementation

n 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

n One could use page charge model for charging for refereeing. n 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

n Problem with Advertising Business model: Audience specialized

(i.e. small) but upscale

n 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

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

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!

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!

Example: Setting up a Polar CI-Grid

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:

PolarGrid

n

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

n

Also need capabilities present in many Grids

• Portal i.e. Science Gateway

• Submitting multiple sequential or parallel jobs

n

Power/Bandwidth Challenged Expedition Grids

F F B F F B F F

B Real TimeMonitor Real Time

Monitor

Archival – High Latency

Archival – High Latency Low Bandwidth Low Bandwidth A d a a y r

Prototype Base/Field Grid

Other Polar Sensors an Sensor Aggregators (Non-polar and Polar Sites)

Polar Expeditions

IU Field Base Camps

APEC Cooperation for Earthquake Simulation

n ACES is a seven year-long collaboration among scientists

interested in earthquake and tsunami predication

• iSERVO is Infrastructure to suppor

work of ACES

• SERVOGrid is (completed) US Grid that is

a prototype of iSERVO

• http://www.quakes.uq.edu.au/ACES/

n Chartered under APEC –

the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation of 21 economies

a

Topography 1 km

Stress Change

Earthquakes

PBO

Site-specific Irregular

Scalar Measurements Constellations for Plate

Boundary-Scale Vector Measurements

a a

Ice Sheets Volcanoes

Long Valley, CA

Northridge, CA

Hector Mine, CA Greenland

Earth/Atmosphere Grids built as Grids of (library) Grids

Ice Sheet Sensors, SAR, Filters, EM, Glacier Simulations

Physical Network Registr

y Metadata

Earthquake Data, Filters & Simulation

Services

Earthquake

SERVOGrid

…

…

Data

Access/Storage Securit

y Notification Workflow Messaging

Portal

s Visualization_Grid

Collaboration Grid

Sensor Grid Compute

Grid GIS Grid

Core Grid Services

Net-Centric Grids

n

DoD has built the Global Information Grid (GiG) and

developed a target architecture

NCOW

(Net-Centric

Operations and Warfare)

n

There are

nine core services NCES

and various

interesting principles such as

OHIO

(Only Handle

Information once)

n

The NCES can be mapped into Grid and Web Services

n

DoD Grids are very similar to

sensor rich science

applications like the polar, tornado (LEAD) and

earthquake problems

n

DoD Command and Control similar to civilian

Emergency Response

and

Crisis Management

DoD Net-Centric Core Enterprise Services

Provisioning, operations and maintenance of applications.

NCES9: Application

Retention, organization and disposition of all forms of data

NCES8: Storage

Includes automated and manual methods of optimizing the user GiG experience (user agent)

NCES7: User Assistance

Provision and control of sharing with emphasis on synchronous real-time services

NCES6: Collaboration

Includes translation, aggregation, integration, correlation, fusion, brokering publication, and other transformations for services and data. Possibly agents

NCES5: Mediation

Searching data and services

NCES4: Discovery

Synchronous or asynchronous cases

NCES3: Messaging

Supports confidentiality, integrity and availability. Implies reliability and autonomic features

NCES2: Information Assurance (IA)/Security

including life-cycle management

NCES1: Enterprise Services Management (ESM)

Service Functionality Core Enterprise Services

DoD Core

F

eatures/

S

ervice Areas I

Semantic Grid, WS-Context WS7

FS8: System Metadata & State

UDDI NCES4

WS6

FS7: Discovery

Grid-Shib, Permis Liberty Alliance ... NCES2

GS7 WS5

FS6 : Security

Grid Programming NCES5 WS4 FS5 Workflow JMS, MQSeries. NCES3 WS3 FS4: Notification Streams/Sensors. Team NCES3 WS2

FS3: Service Internet, Messaging

B: Core Services

Distinctive Strategy for legacy subsystems and

modular architecture

FS2: Grid of Grids

Core Service Architecture, Build Grids on Web

Services. Industry best practice WS1

FS1: Use SOA: Service Oriented Arch. A: Broad Principles

Comments NCES

(DoD)

GS-*

WS-* Service or Feature

The Core

F

eature/

S

ervice Areas II

Current work only addresses scheduling “batch jobs”. Need networks and services

GS3

FS18: Scheduling and matching of Services and Resources

XGSP, Shared Web Service ports NCES6

GS7

FS17: Collaboration and Virtual Organizations

Ad-hoc networks GS5

FS16: Resources and Infrastructure

Standalone Services Proxies for jobs NCES9

GS2

FS15: Applications and User Services

JBI for DoD, WFS for OGC GS4

FS14: Information

NCOW Data Strategy

Federation at data/information layer major research area; CGL leading role

NCES8 GS4

FS13: Data and Storage

GS3

FS12: Computing

Portlets JSR168, NCES Capability Interfaces NCES7

WS10

FS11: Portals and User assistance

B: Core Services (Continued)

Comments NCES

GS-* WS-*

Service or Feature