Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

CTS Conference Web 2.0 Tutorial Part 1


Published on

The first part of a tutorial on Web 2.0 compared to Web services and Grid systems

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

CTS Conference Web 2.0 Tutorial Part 1

  1. 1. Web 2.0 in a Web Services and Grid Context Part I: CTS2007 Web 2.0 Tutorial CTS 2007 Embassy Suites Hotel-Lake Buena Vista Resort, Orlando, FL, USA May 25 2007 Geoffrey Fox and Marlon Pierce Computer Science, Informatics, Physics Pervasive Technology Laboratories Indiana University Bloomington IN 47401 [email_address] http://
  2. 2. Applications, Infrastructure, Technologies <ul><li>This field is confused by inconsistent use of terminology – this is what I mean </li></ul><ul><li>Web Services , Grids and Web 2.0 ( Enterprise 2.0 ) are technologies </li></ul><ul><li>These technologies combine and compete to build electronic infrastructures termed e-infrastructure or Cyberinfrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>e-moreorlessanything is an emerging application area of broad importance that is hosted on the infrastructures e-infrastructure or Cyberinfrastructure </li></ul>
  3. 3. e-moreorlessanything is the Application <ul><li>‘ 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 </li></ul><ul><li>Similarly e-Business captures an emerging view of corporations as dynamic virtual organizations linking employees, customers and stakeholders across the world. </li></ul><ul><li>Net Centric computing is a similar DoD vision </li></ul><ul><li>This generalizes to e-moreorlessanything </li></ul><ul><li>A deluge of data of unprecedented and inevitable size must be managed and understood. </li></ul><ul><li>People (see Web 2.0 ), computers , data and instruments must be linked. </li></ul><ul><li>On demand assignment of experts, computers, networks and storage resources must be supported </li></ul>
  4. 4. Role of Electronic infrastructure <ul><li>Supports integration of data, people, computers for </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Distributed Science or e-Science (US, Cyberinfrastructure ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Command and Control (US, Global Information Grid ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>e-Business e-Science etc. (Europe, e-Infrastructure ) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Exploits Internet technology ( Web2.0 ) adding (via Grid technology) management, security, supercomputers etc. </li></ul><ul><li>It has two aspects: parallel – low latency (microseconds) between nodes and distributed – highish latency (milliseconds) between nodes </li></ul><ul><li>Parallel needed to get high performance on individual 3D simulations, data analysis etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Distributed aspect integrates already distinct components </li></ul><ul><li>Electronic infrastructure is in general a distributed collection of parallel systems and presented as services (often Web services ) that are “just” programs or data sources packaged for distributed access </li></ul>
  5. 5. Not so controversial Ideas <ul><li>Distributed software systems are being “revolutionized” by developments from e-commerce, e-Science and the consumer Internet. There is rapid progress in technology families termed “ Web services ”, “ Grids ” and “ Web 2.0 ” </li></ul><ul><li>The emerging distributed system picture is of distributed services with advertised interfaces but opaque implementations communicating by streams of messages over a variety of protocols </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Complete systems are built by combining either services or predefined/pre-existing collections of services together to achieve new capabilities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Currently Grids are built using Web Services with possible enhancements like WSRF which we call Narrow or Web service Grids </li></ul><ul><li>We expect that future systems will be built as Broad Grids which are a collection of services mixing Web Service and Web 2.0 architectures </li></ul>
  6. 6. Web 2.0 and Web Services I <ul><li>Web Services have clearly defined protocols (SOAP) and a well defined mechanism (WSDL) to define service interfaces </li></ul><ul><ul><li>There is good .NET and Java support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The so-called WS-* specifications provide a rich sophisticated but complicated standard set of capabilities for security, fault tolerance, meta-data, discovery, notification etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>“ Narrow Grids ” build on Web Services and provide a robust managed environment with growing adoption in Enterprise systems and distributed science (so called e-Science) </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 supports a similar architecture to Web services but has developed in a more chaotic but remarkably successful fashion with a service architecture with a variety of protocols including those of Web and Grid services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Over 400 Interfaces defined at http:// </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 also has many well known capabilities with Google Maps and Amazon Compute/Storage services of clear general relevance </li></ul><ul><li>There are also Web 2.0 services supporting novel collaboration modes and user interaction with the web as seen in social networking sites, portals, MySpace, YouTube, </li></ul>
  7. 7. Web 2.0 and Web Services II <ul><li>I once thought Web Services were inevitable but this is no longer clear to me </li></ul><ul><li>Web services are complicated , slow and non functional </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WS-Security is unnecessarily slow and pedantic (canonicalization of XML) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WS-RM (Reliable Messaging) seems to have poor adoption and doesn’t work well in collaboration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WSDM (distributed management) specifies too much </li></ul></ul><ul><li>There are de facto standards like Google Maps and powerful suppliers like Google which “define the rules” </li></ul><ul><li>One can easily combine SOAP (Web Service) based services/systems with HTTP messages but the “lowest common denominator” suggests additional structure/complexity of SOAP will not easily survive </li></ul>
  8. 8. Old and New (Web 2.0) Community Tools <ul><li>e-mail and list-serves are oldest and best used </li></ul><ul><li>Kazaa , Instant Messengers , Skype , Napster , BitTorrent for P2P Collaboration – text, audio-video conferencing, files </li></ul><ul><li> , Connotea , Citeulike, Bibsonomy, Biolicious manage shared bookmarks </li></ul><ul><li>MySpace, YouTube, Bebo, Hotornot, Facebook, or similar sites allow you to create (upload) community resources and share them; Friendster , LinkedIn create networks </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http:// </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Writely , Wikis and Blogs are powerful specialized shared document systems </li></ul><ul><li>ConferenceXP and WebEx share general applications </li></ul><ul><li>Google Scholar tells you who has cited your papers while publisher sites tell you about co-authors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Windows Live Academic Search has similar goals </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Note sharing resources creates (implicit) communities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Social network tools study graphs to both define communities and extract their properties </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. “Best Web 2.0 Sites” -- 2006 <ul><li>Extracted from </li></ul><ul><li>Social Networking </li></ul><ul><li>Start Pages </li></ul><ul><li>Social Bookmarking </li></ul><ul><li>Peer Production News </li></ul><ul><li>Social Media Sharing </li></ul><ul><li>Online Storage (Computing) </li></ul>
  10. 10. Web 2.0 Systems are Portals, Services, Resources <ul><li>Captures the incredible development of interactive Web sites enabling people to create and collaborate </li></ul>
  11. 11. Mashups v Workflow? <ul><li>Mashup Tools are reviewed at http:// =63 </li></ul><ul><li>Workflow Tools are reviewed by Gannon and Fox </li></ul><ul><li>Both include scripting in PHP, Python, sh etc. as both implement distributed programming at level of services </li></ul><ul><li>Mashups use all types of service interfaces and do not have the potential robustness (security) of Grid service approach </li></ul><ul><li>Typically “pure” HTTP ( REST ) </li></ul>
  12. 12. Grid Workflow Datamining in Earth Science <ul><li>Work with Scripps Institute </li></ul><ul><li>Grid services controlled by workflow process real time data from ~70 GPS Sensors in Southern California </li></ul>NASA GPS Earthquake Streaming Data Support Transformations Data Checking Hidden Markov Datamining (JPL) Display (GIS) Real Time Archival
  13. 13. Web 2.0 uses all types of Services <ul><li>Here a Gadget Mashup uses a 3 service workflow with a JavaScript Gadget Client </li></ul>
  14. 14. Web 2.0 APIs <ul><li> has (May 14 2007) 431 Web 2.0 APIs with GoogleMaps the most often used in Mashups </li></ul><ul><li>This site acts as a “ UDDI ” for Web 2.0 </li></ul>
  15. 15. The List of Web 2.0 API’s <ul><li>Each site has API and its features </li></ul><ul><li>Divided into broad categories </li></ul><ul><li>Only a few used a lot ( 42 API’s used in more than 10 mashups ) </li></ul><ul><li>RSS feed of new APIs </li></ul><ul><li>Amazon S3 growing in popularity </li></ul>
  16. 16. APIs/Mashups per Protocol Distribution Number of Mashups Number of APIs REST SOAP XML-RPC REST, XML-RPC REST, XML-RPC, SOAP REST, SOAP JS Other google maps netvibes virtual earth google search amazon S3 amazon ECS flickr ebay youtube 411sync yahoo! search yahoo! geocoding technorati yahoo! images trynt yahoo! local
  17. 17. 4 more Mashups each day <ul><li>For a total of 1906 April 17 2007 (4.0 a day over last month) </li></ul><ul><li>Note ClearForest runs Semantic Web Services Mashup competitions (not workflow competitions) </li></ul><ul><li>Some Mashup types : aggregators, search aggregators, visualizers, mobile, maps, games </li></ul>Growing number of commercial Mashup Tools
  18. 18. Mash Planet Web 2.0 Architecture Display too large to be a Gadget
  19. 19. Searched on Transit/Transportation Searched on Transit/Transportation
  20. 20. 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 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 A “Grid” Workflow (built in Java!) Uses Google Maps clients and server and non Google map APIs Tile Server Cache Server Adapter Adapter Adapter
  21. 21. Indiana Map Grid Workflow/Mashup 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)
  22. 22. Grid-style portal as used in Earthquake Grid <ul><li>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 </li></ul>Now to Portals
  23. 23. Portlets v. Google Gadgets <ul><li>Portals for Grid Systems are built using portlets with software like GridSphere integrating these on the server-side into a single web-page </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>Google is more user friendly! </li></ul><ul><li>The many Web 2.0 competitions is an interesting model for promoting development in the world-wide distributed collection of Web 2.0 developers </li></ul><ul><li>I guess Web 2.0 model will win! </li></ul>Note the many competitions powering Web 2.0 Mashup Development
  24. 24. Typical Google Gadget Structure <ul><li>… Lots of HTML and JavaScript </Content> </Module> </li></ul>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 technology See
  25. 25. Web 2.0 v Narrow Grid I <ul><li>Web 2.0 and Grids are addressing a similar application class although Web 2.0 has focused on user interactions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>So technology has similar requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 chooses simplicity (REST rather than SOAP) to lower barrier to everyone participating </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 and Parallel Computing tend to use traditional (possibly visual) (scripting) languages for equivalent of workflow whereas Grids use visual interface backend recorded in BPEL </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 and Grids both use SOA Service Oriented Architectures </li></ul><ul><li>“ System of Systems”: Grids and Web 2.0 are likely to build systems hierarchically out of smaller systems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>We need to support Grids of Grids, Webs of Grids, Grids of Services etc. i.e. systems of systems of all sorts </li></ul></ul>
  26. 26. Web 2.0 v Narrow Grid II <ul><li>Web 2.0 has a set of major services like GoogleMaps or Flickr but the world is composing Mashups that make new composite services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>End-point standards are set by end-point owners </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Many different protocols covering a variety of de-facto standards </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Narrow 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 </li></ul><ul><li>Popular Web 2.0 technologies are PHP, JavaScript , JSON , AJAX and REST with “ Start Page ” e.g. ( Google Gadgets) interfaces </li></ul><ul><li>Popular Narrow Grid technologies are Apache Axis, BPEL WSDL and SOAP with portlet interfaces </li></ul><ul><li>Robustness of Grids demanded by the Enterprise ? </li></ul><ul><li>Not so clear that Web 2.0 won’t eventually dominate other application areas and with Enterprise 2.0 it’s invading Grids </li></ul>The world does itself in large numbers!
  27. 27. Web 2.0 v Narrow Grid III <ul><li>Narrow Grids have a strong emphasis on standards and structure; Web 2.0 lets a 1000 flowers (protocols) and a million developers bloom and focuses on functionality, broad usability and simplicity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Semantic Web/Grid has structure to allow reasoning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Annotation in sites like and uploading to MySpace/YouTube is unstructured and free text search replaces structured ontologies </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Portals are likely to feature both Web and “desktop client” technology although it is possible that Web approach will be adopted more or less uniformly </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 has a very active portal activity which has similar architecture to Grids </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A page has multiple user interface fragments </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 user interface integration is typically Client side using Gadgets AJAX and JavaScript while </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Grids are in a special JSR168 portal server side using Portlets WSRP and Java </li></ul></ul>
  28. 28. The Ten areas covered by the 60 core WS-* Specifications WSRP (Remote Portlets) 10: Portals and User Interfaces WS-Policy, WS-Agreement 9: Policy and Agreements WSDM, WS-Management, WS-Transfer 8: Management WSRF, WS-MetadataExchange, WS-Context 7: System Metadata and State UDDI, WS-Discovery 6: Service Discovery WS-Security, WS-Trust, WS-Federation, SAML, WS-SecureConversation 5: Security BPEL, WS-Choreography, WS-Coordination 4: Workflow and Transactions WS-Notification, WS-Eventing (Publish-Subscribe) 3: Notification WS-Addressing, WS-MessageDelivery; Reliable Messaging WSRM; Efficient Messaging MOTM 2: Service Internet XML, WSDL, SOAP 1: Core Service Model Typical Grid/Web Service Examples WS-* Specification Area
  29. 29. WS-* Areas and Web 2.0 Start Pages, AJAX and Widgets(Netvibes) Gadgets 10: Portals and User Interfaces Service dependent. Processed by application 9: Policy and Agreements WS-Transfer style Protocols GET PUT etc. 8: Management==Interaction Processed by application – no system state – Microformats are a universal metadata approach 7: System Metadata and State 6: Service Discovery SSL, HTTP Authentication/Authorization, OpenID is Web 2.0 Single Sign on 5: Security Mashups, Google MapReduce Scripting with PHP JavaScript …. 4: Workflow and Transactions (no Transactions in Web 2.0) Hard with HTTP without polling – JMS perhaps? 3: Notification No special QoS. Use JMS or equivalent? 2: Service Internet XML becomes optional but still useful SOAP becomes JSON RSS ATOM WSDL becomes REST with API as GET PUT etc. Axis becomes XmlHttpRequest 1: Core Service Model Web 2.0 Approach WS-* Specification Area
  30. 30. Drivers for Future <ul><li>Web 2.0 has momentum as it is driven by success of social web sites and the user friendly protocols attracting many developers of mashups </li></ul><ul><li>Grids momentum driven by the success of eScience and the commercial web service thrusts largely aimed at Enterprise </li></ul><ul><li>We expect applications such as business and DoD where predictability and robustness important to be built on a Web Service ( Narrow Grid ) core with Web 2.0 functionality enhancements </li></ul><ul><li>Simplicity , supporting many developers are forces pressuring Grids! </li></ul><ul><li>Robustness and coping with unstructured blooming of a 1000 flowers are forces pressuring Web 2.0 </li></ul>