Advertisement

Bringing Knowledge to Middleware — Grid Scheduling Ontology

  • Philipp Wieder
  • Wolfgang Ziegler

Abstract

The Grid paradigm implies the sharing of a variety of resources across multiple administrative domains. Assuming that such an environment is highly dynamic, it is essential to abstract potential drawbacks away from resource users and resource providers. One crucial aspect in designing and operating Grids to gain the respective abstraction is the provision of a sophisticated scheduling and resource management framework. Experience shows that scheduling a single resource like an HPC system is already a challenge, but the co-ordinated scheduling of multiple resources to automatically process a complex work flow is impossible if the capabilities of resources are not a priori known. We propose to make scheduling-specific parts of such knowledge exploitable by introducing a scheduling domain ontology. This ontology provides a common semantic understanding to be shared between the components involved in the scheduling process. By agreeing upon and integrating such an ontology we increase the automation level and make usage and administration of Grids easier.

Keywords

ontology OWL resource management scheduling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    R. Menday and Ph. Wieder. GRIP: The Evolution of UNICORE towards a Service-Oriented Grid. In Proc. of the 3rd Cracow Grid Workshop (CGW’03), Oct. 27–29, 2003.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    C. Catlett, W. Johnston and I. Foster. Global Grid Forum Structure. Grid Forum Document GFD. 2, Global Grid Forum, 2002.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    VIOLA — Vertically Integrated Optical Testbed for Large Application in DFN. Project web site, 2005. Online: http://www.viola-testbed.de/.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    J. Schopf. Ten Actions when Grid Scheduling. In Grid Resource Management (J. Nabrzyski, J. Schopf and J. Weglarz, eds.), pages 15–23, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    J. Brooke, K. Garwood and C. Goble. Interoperability of Grid Resource Descriptions: A Semantic Approach. In Proc. of the GGF 9 Semantic Grid Workshop, 2003.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    C. Goble and N. Shadbolt. Ontologies and the Grid. Tutorial held at GGF 4, 2002. Online: http://www.semanticgrid.org/presentations/ontologies-tutorial/.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    M. Roehrig, W. Ziegler and Ph. Wieder. Grid Scheduling Dictionary of Terms and Keywords. Grid Forum Document GFD. ll, Global Grid Forum, 2003.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. Roehrig, W. Ziegler and Ph. Wieder. Grid Scheduling Dictionary WG Charter, 2003. Online: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/sd-wg/document/ggf-sd-charter-final.html/en/1.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    G. Klyne and J. J. Carroll. Resource Description Framework (RDF) — Concepts and Abstract Syntax. W3C Recommendation, Feb. 2004.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Klein, J. Broekstra, D. Fensel, F. v. Harmelen and I. Horrocks. Ontologies and Schema Languages on the Web. In Spinning the Semantic Web (D. Fensel, J. A. Hendler, H. Lieber-man and W. Wahlster, eds.), pages 95–139, The MIT Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    D. Connolly, F. v. Harmelen, I. Horrocks, D.L. McGuinness, P.F. Patel-Schneider, L.A. Stein. DAML+OIL (March 2001) Reference Description. W3C Note, Mar. 2001.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    D.L. McGuinness, F. v. Harmelen. OWL Web Otology Language Overview. W3C Recommendation, Feb. 2004.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    N.F. Noy, M. Sintek, S. Decker, M. Crubezy, R.M. Fergerson, M.A. Musen. Creating Semantic Web Contents with Protege-2000. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16(2):60–71, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    V. Haarslev and R. Möller. RACER System Description. In Automated Reasoning: First International Joint Conference (IJCAR 2001). Volume 2083 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 701–-?, Springer, 2001.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler and O. Lassila. The Semantic Web. Scientific American.com, 2001.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    T.R. Gruber. Translation Apporach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Systems Laboratory Technical Report KSL 92-71, Stanford University, 2002.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    M. Uschold, and M. Gruniger. Ontologies: Principles, Methods and Applications. Artificial Intelligence Applications Institute Technical Report AIAI-TR-191, University of Edinburgh, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    D. Thain and M. Livny. Building Reliable Clients and Servers. In The Grid: Blueprint for a New Computing Infrastructure (I. Foster and C. Kesselman, eds.), Morgan Kaufmann, 2003.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    The Globus Alliance. Project web site, 2005. Online: http://www.globus.org.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    D. Erwin (Ed.) UNICORE Plus Final Report — Uniform Interface to Computing Resources. UNICORE Forum e.V., ISBN 3-00-011592-7, 2003.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    H. Tangmunarunkit, S. Decker and C. Kesselman. Ontology-Based Resource Matching in the Grid — The Grid Meets the Semantic Web. In Proc. of the International Semantic Web Conference 2003. Volume 2870 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 706–721. Springer, Sep. 2003.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    G. Quecke and W. Ziegler. MeSch — An Approach to Resource Management in a Distributed Environment. In Proc. of 1st IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Grid Computing (Grid 2000). Volume 1971 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 47–54, Springer, 2000.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    A. Andrieux, K. Czajkowski, A. Dan, K. Keahey, H. Ludwig, J. Pruyne, J. Rofrano, S. Tuecke and M. Xu, Web Services Agreement Specification. Grid Forum Draft, Version 1.1, Global Grid Forum, 2004.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    DataTAG — Research & technological development for a Data TransAtlantic Grid. Project web site, 2005. Online: http://www.datatag.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    L. Li and I. Horrocks. A Software Framework For Matchmaking Based on Semantic Web Technology. In Proc. of the Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW2003). 2003.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    C. Wroe, R. Stevens, C. Goble, A. Roberts and M. Greenwood. A suite of DAML+OIL Ontologies to Describe Bioinformatics Web Services and Data. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems special issue on Bioinformatics. Mar. 2003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philipp Wieder
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Ziegler
    • 2
  1. 1.Central Institute for Applied MathematicsResearch Centre JülichJülichGermany
  2. 2.Department for Web-based ApplicationsFraunhofer Institute SCAISankt AugustinGermany

Personalised recommendations