Web 2.0 and Grids . Introduction for Web 2.0 Tutorial OGF19 Chapel Hill North Carolina January 29 2007 Geoffrey Fox Computer Science, Informatics, Physics Pervasive Technology Laboratories Indiana University Bloomington IN 47401 email@example.com http://www.infomall.org.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Introduction for Web 2.0 Tutorial
OGF19 Chapel Hill North Carolina
January 29 2007
Computer Science, Informatics, Physics
Pervasive Technology Laboratories
Indiana University Bloomington IN 47401
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)Mashups v Workflow?
Hidden MarkovDatamining (JPL)
Display (GIS)Grid Workflow Datamining in Earth Science
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)
Google Maps Server
Marion County Map Server
Hamilton County Map Server
Cass County Map Server
(OGC Web Map Server)
Must provide adapters for each Map Server type .
Browser client fetches image tiles for the bounding box using Google Map API.
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.
The cache server fulfills Google map calls with cached tiles at the requested bounding box that fill the bounding box.
Google Map API
Display too large to be a Gadget
Searched on Transit/Transportation
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
Note the many competitions powering Web 2.0 Mashup DevelopmentPortlets v. Google Gadgets
Start Page technologySee http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=8Typical Google Gadget Structure
Portlets build User Interfaces by combining fragments in a standalone Java Server
Mashups are workflow (and vice versa)
Portals are start pages and portlets could be gadgets
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/