1. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 1 The Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective Keith G Jeffery Science and Technology Facilities Council Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, OX11 0QX UK e-mail: keith.g.jeffery@rl.ac.uk

2. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 2 Who ? Old job – running the major IT department –Computer operations 360,000 users 1100 servers –Systems development Corporate Departments External –R&D –Library and Information Services –Photoreprographics Director, IT & International Strategy

3. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 3 And… President ERCIM President euroCRIS Honorary Visiting Professor –University of Cardiff –Heriot Watt University Edinburgh –Masaryk University Czech Republic Fellow BCS and GS, Honorary Fellow ICS, CEng, CITP

4. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 4 CCLRC-RAL Site

5. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 5 PPD: CERN: LHC

6. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 6 PPD : CMS

7. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 7 ISIS: Neutrons

8. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 8 SSTD: Earth Gulf Stream Etna

9. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 9 SSTD: Mars 23 January 2004 This picture was taken by the High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC) onboard ESA's Mars Express orbiter, in colour and 3D, in orbit 18 on 15 January 2004 from a height of 273 km. The location is east of the Hellas basin at 41° South and 101° East. The area is 100 km across, with a resolution of 12 m per pixel, and shows a channel (Reull Vallis) once formed by flowing water. The landscape is seen in a vertical view, North is at the top.

10. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 10 SSTD: Earth Dartford, UK (with inset of the Queen Elisabeth Bridge) from 680km up First image from RAL camera on TOP- SAT

11. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 11 Lasers: Vulcan

12. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 12 Diamond: Synchrotron Radiation

13. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 13 Computing STFC runs HPC(X) 5 th fastest computer when purchased IBM Power series Used by UK R&D Community

14. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 14 VR: EISCAT Control Problem: cost and data loss when training scientists to use EISCAT Answer: VR system at RAL to train before going to Norway

15. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 15 18 European countries - major labs or consortia of universities 12000 ICT researchers –Working groups –Fellows programme –Cor Baayen Award Strategy documents for EC and national governments R&D projects, networks of excellence etc > 100 spin-out companies Host of W3C Europe European Office(s) of W3C ERCIM News www.ercim.org ERCIM European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics

16. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 16 Linking together systems in each country managing research information –Funders of research –Organisations performing research For –Strategic decision-making about ewhat research to fund /do –Finding research partners and competitors –Finding innovative ideas for technology transfer / exploitation –Informing the media / public www.eurocris.org CERIF: an EU Recommendation to member states

17. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 17 So? This background gives you some idea of where Im coming from –Advanced research problems requiring ICT solutions –Research not blue sky but practical –Management and administrative systems for Research Support –International working –Strategic thinking for / using blue sky research to plan roadmaps for ICT R&D

18. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 18 So? This background gives you some idea of where Im coming from –Advanced research problems requiring ICT solutions –Research not blue sky but practical –International working –Strategic thinking for / using blue sky research to plan roadmaps for ICT R&D And what I am going to talk about is the ICT of the future that we shall all be using and/or developing And the research challenges we have to overcome to make it happen

19. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 19 STRUCTURE The Original UK Idea Where We Are Now The R&D Required to Achieve GRIDs NGG: Next Generation GRIDs CoreGRID Challengers Conclusion

20. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 20 In the beginning….. In 1999 the UK Research Councils (which fund university R&D) were undergoing their Strategic Review Exercise for funding beyond 2000 –Grand challenge science projects The DGRC (John Taylor) unhappy that plans –had too little IT –the IT proposed was incoherent So he asked CCLRC CEO (Bert Westwood) to have someone generate an IT plan And Bert asked me

21. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 21 The GRIDs Vision The end-user interacts with the GRIDs environment to clarify the request –using a device or appliance The GRIDs environment proposes a deal to satisfy the request –which may or may not involve money The user accepts or rejects the deal

22. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 22 The GRIDs Vision The GRIDs environment is such that –A user can interact with it intelligently –It provides transparent access to data, information, knowledge computation instrumentation / detectors

23. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 23 The GRID Bible

24. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 24 The GRIDs Architecture Knowledge Layer Information LayerComputation / Data Layer Data to Knowledge Control

25. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 25 The GRIDs Architecture Data to Knowledge Control Particle Physics ApplicationGenomics Application Environmental ApplicationE-Business Application

26. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 26 The Big Idea: What it Provides User Appliance The Wall The GRIDs Environment Plug-in PC Palmtop Mobile.. Personal Communication Personal Shopping Hobbies, family activities Business Communication Business Dealing Business Information

27. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 27 Ambient, pervasive, mobile The user appliance may well be mobile and requires pervasive connectivity It may have interesting capabilities such as attachment of detectors / instruments –Scientific research –paramedics, firefighters –Even road warriors

28. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 28 A POSSIBLE ARCHITECTURE U:USER S:SOURCE R:RESOURCE Rm:Resource Metadata Ra:Resource Agent Ua:User Agent Um:User Metadata Sm:Source Metadata Sa:Source Agent brokers The GRIDs Environment

29. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 29 Classification of Metadata data (document) SCHEMANAVIGATIONALASSOCIATIVE how to get it constrain it view to users

30. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 30 Representative Agents Represent the entities {U, S, R} continuously and actively within the GRIDs environment With metadata represent the entity to others represented by their agents Act on behalf of the entity

31. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 31 Brokers (a) authentication, (b) clarification / precision of request, (c) resource discovery (information and if necessary compute power, visualisation facilities etc) (d) authorisation (rights), (e) offer and pricing, (f) closure of deal (U accepts (e))

32. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 32 Brokers (continued) (g) fusion of responses, (h) application of any transformation / analysis / simulation / visualisation processes, (i) presentation formatting (for variously abled devices and people using various resources), (j) network routing, and (k) scheduling of physical resource access / usage

33. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 33 Monitoring Brokers and others will monitor –quality of service, –utilisation of resource collections –specialist physical resources –etc etc.

34. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 34 STRUCTURE The Original UK Idea Where We Are Now The R&D Required to Achieve GRIDs NGG: Next Generation GRIDs CoreGRID Challengers Conclusions

35. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 35 1G: custom-made architecture machines to user –Pioneering metacomputing 2G: proprietary standards and interfaces –I-WAY GLOBUS, UNICORE, CONDOR, LEGION AVAKI 2.5G: added in FTP, SRB, LDAP, AccessGRID 3G: adopted W3C concepts for open interfaces – OGSA / OGSI: note especially OGSA/DAI –But built on 2.G foundations A Brief History of GRIDs

36. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 36 A Brief History of GRIDs 1G: custom-made architecture machines to user –Pioneering metacomputing 2G: proprietary standards and interfaces –I-WAY GLOBUS, UNICORE, CONDOR, LEGION AVAKI 2.5G: added in FTP, SRB, LDAP, AccessGRID 3G: adopted W3C concepts for open interfaces – OGSA / OGSI: note especially OGSA/DAI –But built on 2.G foundations e-Science Apps

37. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 37 1G: custom-made architecture machines to user –Pioneering metacomputing 2G: proprietary standards and interfaces –I-WAY GLOBUS, UNICORE, CONDOR, LEGION AVAKI 2.5G: added in FTP, SRB, LDAP, AccessGRID 3G: adopted W3C concepts for open interfaces – OGSA / OGSI: note especially OGSA/DAI –But built on 2.G foundations A Brief History of GRIDs e-Science Apps e-Science R&D

38. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 38 But….. This comes nowhere near the requirements as originally defined for GRIDs Too low-level (programmer not end-user level) –Insufficient representativity –Insufficient expressivity –Insufficient resilience –Insufficient dynamic flexibility

39. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 39 STRUCTURE The Original UK Idea Where We Are Now The R&D Required to Achieve GRIDs NGG: Next Generation GRIDs CoreGRID Challengers Conclusions

40. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 40 1999-2000 The R&D issues were proposed in late 1999 Discussed and approved at a meeting in UK of representative gurus from academia and industry in early 2000 Essential Technologies needing R&D Ease of use Trust Performance

41. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 41 Facilitate Ease of Use Metadata –Representation language expressivity: user, source, resource –within / across domains Agents –Specialised or Generalised and configured by metadata –Dynamically reconfigured by events / messages Brokers –Functional –Knowledge-based with some autonomy –Strategic knowledge

42. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 42 Facilitate Trust Security –Wireless communications –Availability of service Privacy –Tradeoff personal information for intelligent system reaction Trust –Of services / servers –Of payment for services

43. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 43 Facilitate Performance Mobile code –Be able to move the code to the data rather than data to the code –Share code among nodes active in one request Performance and optimisation Synchronisation, consistency, reliability Ease of management

44. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 44 STRUCTURE The Original UK Idea Where We Are Now The R&D Required to Achieve GRIDs NGG: Next Generation GRIDs CoreGRID Challengers Conclusions

45. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 45 So….. The US GRID is metacomputing plus extensions –In 2002 improved with OGSA using W3C Web Services ideas European position is that GRID architecture (GLOBUS or even UNICORE) is the wrong starting point for the European vision

46. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 46 And….. EC persuaded of importance of GRIDs –Started in IST/Environment (early 2000) with IT architectural framework for FP6 projects –Set up GRID Unit under Wolfgang Boch (late 2002) January 2003: large workshop (GRID Unit) –(~ 240 participants) –Keynotes: Thierry Priol (INRIA, FR) Domenico Laforenza (CNR, IT) Keith Jeffery (CCLRC, UK)

47. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 47 NGG Requirements Transparent and reliable Open to wide user and provider communities Pervasive and ubiquitous Secure and provide trust across multiple administrative domains Easy to use and to program Persistent Based on standards for software and protocols Person-centric Scalable Easy to configure and manage

48. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 48 Call2 (NGG1) Projects Funded

49. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 49 NGG2 NGG1 left some undefined research areas Call2 projects did not address all areas of research opportunity NGG2 convened to update the vision: –Particularly security / trust –Particularly self-* properties –Particularly semantic description of components Report September 2004

50. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 50 Application AApplication BApplication C Grids Middleware Services Needed for A Grids Middleware Services Needed for B Grids Middleware Services Needed for C Grids Foundations for Operating System X Grids Foundations For Operating System Y Operating System X Operating System Y Grids Operating System (including Foundations) Modular and dynamically loadable NGG2 Architecture

51. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 51 September 2005 - January 2006 Draft report to EC DG INFSO F2 in December for EC internal discussions on FP7 Final Report in January 2006 Key messages –GRIDs environment layering too complex –Use SOKU Service Oriented Knowledge Utility NGG3

52. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 52 A utility is a directly and immediately useable service with established functionality, performance and dependability, illustrating the emphasis on user needs and issues such as trust Services are knowledge- assisted (semantic) to facilitate automation and advanced functionality, the knowledge aspect reinforced by the emphasis on delivering high level services to the user Service-Oriented Knowledge Utility NGG3 The architecture comprises services which may be instantiated and assembled dynamically, hence the structure, behaviour and location of software is changing at run-time;

53. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 53 Next Generation Grids Report 2005 NGG3 NGG1&NGG2 vision and research challenges Adaptability, Scalability, Dependability Raising the Level of Abstraction Trust and Security in Virtual Organizations Semantic Technologies Lifecycle Management Pervasiveness and Context Awareness of Services Future for European Grids: GRIDs and Service Oriented Knowledge Utilities – Vision and Research Directions 2010 and Beyond, December 2006 Vision and Research Directions 2010 and Beyond, December 2006 Human Factors and Societal Issues End-User – Business/Enterprise –Manufacturing/Industrial Research Topics Driving Scenarios

54. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 54 From Web towards SOKU NGG3

55. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 55 NGG3: SOKU Interfaces Computing Infrastructure Services Non SOKU

56. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 56 NGG3: SOKU SOKU Concept –dynamically composed utility environment SOKU components –Grid/Web services with attitude Semantic metadata self-description allowing self-organising, self-composing –like an OO class with attitude –like a KE Frame with attitude –like a (rather elaborate) function signature

57. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 57 e-,i-,k-infrastructure server detectors e- i- k- Deduction & induction – human or machine Physical Information Systems server

58. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 58 Middleware – and as SOKUs e- i- k- Lower middleware (hides physical heterogeneity) Upper middleware (hides syntactic heterogeneity) K- upper middleware (resolves semantic heterogeneity) K- lower middleware (presents declared semantics)

59. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 59 Services to SOKU with METADATA A Service Composed Services Functional Program Code (to deliver the service) Service description (descriptive metadata) Input Parameter definitions Output Parameter definitions Restrictions on use of service (restrictive metadata) Multiple Instances Parallel execution

60. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 60 STRUCTURE The Original UK Idea Where We Are Now The R&D Required to Achieve GRIDs NGG: Next Generation GRIDs CoreGRID Challengers Conclusions

61. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 61 Developmental Work packages –Data and knowledge management –Programming Model –System Architecture –Resource Management and Scheduling –Problem Solving Environments Other Work Packages –Internal Dissemination –Trust & Security –Testbed for Research Assessment –Mobility of Researchers External –Education & Training –Industry Liaison NoE Submitted October 15 th 2003 42 partners; coordinated by

62. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 62 Achievements GCM: Grid Component Model Trust and Security Data, Information and Knowledge management Mobile GRIDs Desktop GRIDs By linking with other EC and national- funded GRIDs projects and providing a coherent base

63. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 63 And after CoreGRID ? We have a reasonably well-trained pan- European workforce in advanced ICT (GRIDs) Sustainability by using ERCIM as the centre for a CoreGRID Institute (Working Group) To ensure Europe stays at the forefront

64. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 64 STRUCTURE The Original UK Idea Where We Are Now The R&D Required to Achieve GRIDs NGG: Next Generation GRIDs CoreGRID Challengers Conclusions

65. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 65 March 2008CHALLENGERS Consortium65 CHALLENGERS Research Agenda and Roadmap IST- 034128

66. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 66 Brussels March 2008 CHALLENGERS Consortium 66 Applications: Social networking and collaborative users communities: Collaborative environments of users' communities Augmented reality On-line gaming Sensor enriched infrastructures: User as a sensor – Networked sensors – Internet of things Situation/Context Monitoring (e.g. health monitoring) Scientific Grids -> Sensors + Experiments Applications: Social networking and collaborative users communities: Collaborative environments of users' communities Augmented reality On-line gaming Sensor enriched infrastructures: User as a sensor – Networked sensors – Internet of things Situation/Context Monitoring (e.g. health monitoring) Scientific Grids -> Sensors + Experiments Applications: Grid-enabled support of social and cognitive sciences with knowledge: From data/information to knowledge Semantic metadata exist for everything Grid enabled mission-critical applications: Grids in business and critical infrastructures Knowledge based healthcare Disaster monitoring and handling Risk reduction Applications: Grid-enabled support of social and cognitive sciences with knowledge: From data/information to knowledge Semantic metadata exist for everything Grid enabled mission-critical applications: Grids in business and critical infrastructures Knowledge based healthcare Disaster monitoring and handling Risk reduction High Priority Component Technologies: User interfaces Hide complexity Enable personalization Allow service composition by users Intelligent Networking Network semantics Support SOA Enable QoS by design Computer Architectures Systems on Chip Towards Networked Sensors (Internet of Things) Data Engineering Improve Data management from SOA to SOKU context Security-Privacy (by design) Lifecycle Management High Priority Component Technologies: User interfaces Hide complexity Enable personalization Allow service composition by users Intelligent Networking Network semantics Support SOA Enable QoS by design Computer Architectures Systems on Chip Towards Networked Sensors (Internet of Things) Data Engineering Improve Data management from SOA to SOKU context Security-Privacy (by design) Lifecycle Management High Priority Non-Functional Requirements: Usability Mobility Performance Manageability Security-Privacy High Priority Non-Functional Requirements: Usability Mobility Performance Manageability Security-Privacy High Priority Component Technologies: Self-* Autonomic Infrastructures Manageability of large scale distributed platforms Formal methods and architectural languages User-centric communication Transition to knowledge-based environments Measuring, Metering, controlling and reasoning of NFRs Ensure functionality and scalability Lifecycle management and governance High Priority Component Technologies: Self-* Autonomic Infrastructures Manageability of large scale distributed platforms Formal methods and architectural languages User-centric communication Transition to knowledge-based environments Measuring, Metering, controlling and reasoning of NFRs Ensure functionality and scalability Lifecycle management and governance High Priority Non-Functional Requirements: Flexibility - Manageability Scalability Dependability Interoperability High Priority Non-Functional Requirements: Flexibility - Manageability Scalability Dependability Interoperability Mid term Vision: DEMOCRATISATION OF GRIDS Ubiquity Interconnectedness at any level Pervasiveness Life in the Open and "on the move" Long term Vision: From Core Sciences to Cognition Knowledge-based communication Pervasive infrastructures Grid-enabled mission-critical applications SOA SOKU Present Mid-term Future (5-years) Mid-term Future (5-years) Long-term Future (10-15 years) Long-term Future (10-15 years)

67. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 67 Brussels March 2008 CHALLENGERS Consortium 67 The CHALLENGERS Core Group: Dora Varvarigou, ICCS/NTUA Santi Ristol, Atos Origin Keith Jeffery, STFC Stefan Wesner, HLRS Colin Upstill, IT Innovation Domenico Laforenza, ISTI/CNR Michel Riguidel, ENST Jarek Nabrziski, PSNC John Barr, Group 451 Theo Dimitrakos

68. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 68 CHALLENGERS SSA: Towards a Research Agenda and A Roadmap for the coming Decade IST- 034128 A personal contribution…

69. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 69 Background Rationale –Recognises the current view of the end-point (SOKU) –Recognises the current state-of-the-art –Takes into account the outputs from previous Challengers workshops –Takes into account what is happening in the world in the ICT area specifically in e-infrastructure, GRIDs, SOA etc –(with acknowledgement to NGG, EC-Funded GRIDs projects, NESSI, 3S and others)

70. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 70 SOKU Revisited The key point is that SOKUs are self- standing, self-managing services that can self-compose and/or be composed This implies they either: –Cooperate with some composer (orchestrator, choreographer) via an interface discovery, composition, execution, monitoring, recomposition or –Manage themselves dependent on parameters via an interface (and their own intelligence) –Cooperate with others via parameters passed through an interface (shared intelligence) –In both composition and execution phases

71. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 71 Note The SOKU (services) can be wrapping: –Fully composed services end-to-end from user to e-infrastructure (servers, data stores, communications) –Data or information (or knowledge) sources –Software sources –Physical hardware resources (servers, communications, detectors, user devices) –Persons -in roles- (agents) –…….

72. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 72 SOKU key point Interfaces defined by metadata: –Schema (to assure correctness e.g. database schema or formal functional signature) –Navigational (to reach it e.g. URL) –Associative (to use it) Descriptive (what the service can do including any functional limitations e.g. precision, accuracy) Restrictive (conditions to use the service like cost, rights (trust, privacy, security), performance parameters,… –And supported by Supportive (domain-level (not service-level) metadata such as thesauri, domain ontologies… The metadata is used at composition and execution time The metadata provides the flexibility for self-* The metadata allows intercommunication through the software stack so that service levels for NFRs can be realised This may involve dynamic recomposition (i.e. self-*)

73. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 73 Strawman Roadmap 20062018201220152009 SOKU Apps SOKU middleware Web & GRID Services Ontology Services OGSA Web Services G-Lite Globus Unicore Linux Windows Linux-WS Win-WS Linux-GS Note: coloured lines indicate predicted transitions to lead to the vision

74. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 74 Key Points WS W/G S –(since 2002) GLOBUS GLite –Increase usability (EGEE EGI) –European convergence W/G S SOKU –Improved metadata Linux Linux WS –Compose OS functions with application dynamically 20062018201220152009 SOKU Apps SOKU middleware Web & GRID Services Ontology Services OGSA Web Services G-Lite Globus Unicore Linux Windows Linux-WS Win-WS Linux-GS Note: coloured lines indicate predicted transitions to lead to the vision

75. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 75 STRUCTURE The Original UK Idea Where We Are Now The R&D Required to Achieve GRIDs NGG: Next Generation GRIDs CoreGRID Challengers Conclusions

76. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 76 And behind it all….CS issues Trust –Security –Privacy –Trust Ease of use (expressivity, representativity) –Metadata –Agents –Brokers Conclusions

77. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 77 And behind it all….CS issues Mobile code –Be able to move the code to the data rather than data to the code –Share code among nodes active in one request (distribution / parallelism) Performance and optimisation –Over computation, network, data source Synchronisation, consistency, reliability –For mobile devices (PDAs, detectors, instruments…) –In a dynamic environment Conclusions

78. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 78 What does this mean for ISE? Both Data modelling and System Implementation Representation of real world –Connected graphs not only hierarchies (to represent real world) hierarchies represent a limitation of the human view of complex structures –Complex semantics (systems need to understand for autonomy) Domain ontologies to provide supportive metadata for interoperability well-formed richly-structured syntax to permit tractable programming –Business processes (because they evolve) general code and execute-time binding of data Configured dynamically by representative metadata Global state –Local state and active interfaces between local stateful systems Conclusions

79. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 79 What does this mean for ISE? Transactions (represent real world, not idealised CS world) –Complex, multi-level, local but with open-ended properties E.g. Orders, invoices… –Messaging interfaces Completeness –Dealing with incomplete information for decision-making –Probability, fuzziness, learning systems Certainty –Dealing with uncertain information –Probability, fuzziness, learning systems Optimisation –No global state so local, maybe wider with negotiation –Partitioning, approximation, much use of metadata Conclusions

80. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 80 What does this mean for ISE? Trust –Representation of business organisations, their policies (how?) –Contracts and proposals (some progress) –Servicel level agreements (some progress) Security –System availability and continuity under attack –Prevention of unauthorised system access –Authentication and authorisation – global or connected local systems Privacy –Openness of personal data to data subject (right to correctness) –Security of personal data to others (right to privacy) Unacceptable Use –What does a spam transaction look like? –Hijacking of system by adult, political, racist…. transactions Conclusions

81. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 81 Conclusions The UK e-Science programme led the way NGG1,2,3… provides a courageous vision With many challenging R&D topics aims to provide the architecture of the ICT environment of the future for business and science, for healthcare and environment, for culture and leisure Challengers provides the roadmap to 2025

82. ©STFC/Keith G JefferyThe Future of GRIDs: A European Perspective 20080410 82 Prof. Keith G Jeffery CEng, CITP, FBCS, FGS, HFICS Director, IT & International Strategy STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory k.g.jeffery@rl.ac.uk