RE: [sem-grd] Agents and the Grid?

[Kashif Iqbal <kashif.iqbal@deri.org>]

David,

I completely agree with you.

Because whenever we talk about integrating agents and grid, usually we end
up in bridging the communication gap between the two technologies. Many
existing efforts in integrating agents and grid experienced the same. I also
did the same when we proposed "Autonomous Distributed Service System". 

The other approach taken by some of the people was to build grids using MAS
(multi agent systems) but this is something which Grid community can't
afford now.

In some of the points for charter I mentioned that certain characteristics
of agents like autonomy, negotiation, interaction protocols, and
communication languages can certainly help grid world.

So, I will also advocate the point made by Dave.

Cheers,
Kashif

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sem-grd@gridforum.org [mailto:owner-sem-grd@gridforum.org] On
Behalf Of David De Roure
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 11:36 AM
To: Jon MacLaren
Cc: 'Semantic Grid Research Group'
Subject: RE: [sem-grd] Agents and the Grid?

John

My view is that we perhaps shoudn't be talking of "agents" but rather we
need to tease out more exactly which bits of agents benefit which bits of
Grid.  For example, one aspect that seems to me to be much needed at this
time is the expertise on negotiation - this need is evidenced by the
WS-Agreement activity.  This could, for example, result in an activity
called negotiation rather than agents, and it might sit in a different
area to other aspects of agency.  Another topic might be self-management
a.k.a. autonomic.  

Some of these topics sit naturally under the Architecture area, which is
also where Semantic grid sits currently - and therefore they look to fit
in, under or alongside Semantic Grid (hence this discussion).  But the 
GGF Steering Group is meeting today to discuss area reorganisation, after
which I should have a better idea about where things could land.

Having said that, regardless of area structure, it makes sense to proceed
with drafting the charter and planning a BoF.

I'll report back later today!

Thanks

-- Dave

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Jon MacLaren wrote:

> I think that the most important facing those of us interested in Agents
> technology is how to bring experience from the Agents community into the
GGF
> (something which should benefit both communities).
> 
> I agree with Carole that having them partitioned into their own group
> probably doesn't make too much sense.  Unless, perhaps, it was a RG whose
> main goal was to help figure out how best to direct knowledge (and effort)
> from the Agent people into existing GGF groups (or into fitting Agent
> technologies into the Grid "big picture", as it were).  I know of at least
> one WG which certainly would've benefited from more influence from Agent
> experts.  Is this a valid goal for a RG?  (I guess that there will be new
> things too, requiring new WGs, unless we've thought of everything
elsewhere
> in GGF!)
> 
> But discussing this further is very difficult without having a draft
> charter, or without at least knowing roughly what is intended.
> 
> Apologies Dave, I know you were canvassing for views in the other
direction!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jon MacLaren.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sem-grd@gridforum.org [mailto:owner-sem-grd@gridforum.org]
On
> > Behalf Of David De Roure
> > Sent: 02 November 2004 16:00
> > To: Carole Goble
> > Cc: Semantic Grid Research Group
> > Subject: Re: [sem-grd] Agents and the Grid?
> > 
> > All
> > 
> > The agents charter is now being formulated, and there's a discussion
about
> > whether it should be a research group or a working group.  If a working
> > group, it could be spawned by Semantic Grid.
> > 
> > There's also a suggestion of having a Semantic Grid workshop at a later
> > GGF themed on agents.
> > 
> > All of these suggestions seem to be in line with keeping these
activities
> > together, as Carole underlined in her recent message.
> > 
> > Also, we are due to review the Semantic grid charter, which is another
> > opportunity to bring things together.
> > 
> > So I'll turn the question round - would anyone like to argue to keep
> > Semantic Grid and agents as very *distinct* activities at research group
> > level?
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > -- Dave
> > 
> > On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Carole Goble wrote:
> > 
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > In my recent ECAI keynote on the Semantic Grid I had a section on
> > > Agents. This was coming from the point if view that the agent
community
> > > and the knowledge rep. community were often the same.
> > > If you have another activity with agents and the grid separate to the
> > > Semantic Grid RG, isn't that just dividing your already small base? I
> > > would welcome more active help and effort in FEWER RG andWG, not yet
> > > more. I would like to see the agents people involved in the SEM-GRD,
> > > scheduling, OGSA etc activities rather than in a ghetto.
> > >
> > > Carole
> > >
> > > >Some GGF business.
> > > >
> > > >There will be a discussion about GGF area reorganisation at a
> > > >forthcoming GGF Steering Group meeting (at SC2004).
> > > >
> > > >In fact this doesn't affect the Semantic Grid Research Group much.
> > > >We're currently in the architecture area, we could well have been
> > > >in data, and it doesn't make a huge amount of difference anyway(!)
> > > >
> > > >Meanwhile I have been advocating the introduction of an activity
> > > >in the area of agents and the grid, and this has attracted some
> > > >interest from parts of the agents community where there are some
> > > >existing grid activities.  It needs a champion and I think this
> > > >may happen.
> > > >
> > > >So, through reorganisation of the areas, this may will end up in
> > > >an area alongside Semantic Grid (which may be a good thing when it
> > > >comes to bridge-building).
> > > >
> > > >Anyway, I'd welcome any comments from the community on this (e.g.
> > > >do you think GGF should have an agents and the grid activity?  Do
> > > >you think it should sit next to Semantic Grid?), so that I can go
> > > >into the discussions able to represent your views.
> > > >
> > > >Thanks
> > > >
> > > >-- Dave
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> 
> 
>