Web 2.0 and Grids
-
Upload
sampetruda -
Category
Documents
-
view
966 -
download
2
description
Transcript of Web 2.0 and Grids
11
Web 2.0 and Grids
March 4 2007
Geoffrey Fox
Computer Science, Informatics, Physics
Pervasive Technology Laboratories
Indiana University Bloomington IN 47401
http://www.infomall.org
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• Social network tools study graphs to both define communities
and extract their properties
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 del.icio.us
44
“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)
55
Why Web 2.0 is Useful Captures the incredible development of interactive
Web sites enabling people to create and collaborate
66
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 GridsThe world does itself in large numbers!
88
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)
99
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
1010
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
(March 3 2007) 388 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 (34 API’s used in more than 10 mashups)
RSS feed of new APIs
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
Growing number of commercial Mashup Tools
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
http://www.imagine-it.org/mashplanetDisplay too large to be a Gadget
17
Searched on Transit/TransportationSearched on Transit/Transportation
1818
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
1919
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
APIs/Mashups per Protocol Distribution
REST SOAP XML-RPC REST,XML-RPC
REST,XML-RPC,
SOAP
REST,SOAP
JS Other
google google mapsmaps
netvibesnetvibes
live.comlive.com
virtual virtual earthearth
google google searchsearch
amazon S3amazon S3
amazon amazon ECSECS
flickrflickrebayebay
youtubeyoutube
411sync411syncdel.icio.usdel.icio.us
yahoo! searchyahoo! searchyahoo! geocodingyahoo! geocoding
technoratitechnorati
yahoo! imagesyahoo! imagestrynttrynt
yahoo! localyahoo! local
Number ofMashups
Number ofAPIs
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 http://msdn.microsoft.com/robotics/. • Runs well on multicore as well as distributed systems
Mashups can support multiple protocols but “equilibrium” is an evolution to simplest protocols as advantage of complicated protocols gets thrown away
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1 10 100 1000 10000
Round trips
Av
era
ge
ru
n t
ime
(m
icro
se
co
nd
s)
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
DSS Service Measurements
2424
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)
Portals are start pages and portlets could be gadgets
2525
OGF Activities http://www.semanticgrid.org/OGF/ogf19/ 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 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:
Implications of Web2.0 on eScience Implications of Web2.0 on OGSA (Grids) Implications of Web2.0 on Enterprise Implications of Web2.0 on Digital Libraries/repositories