1 Web 2.0 and Grids March Geoffrey Fox Computer Science, Informatics, Physics Pervasive Technology Laboratories Indiana University Bloomington IN

Old and New (Web 2.0) Community Tools del.icio.us, Connotea, Citeulike, Bibsonomy, Biolicious manage shared bookmarks MySpace, YouTube, Bebo, Hotornot, Facebook, or similar sites allow you to create (upload) community resources and share them; Friendster, LinkedIn create networks Google documents, Wikis and Blogs are powerful specialized shared document systems ConferenceXP and WebEx share general applications Google Scholar tells you who has cited your papers while publisher sites tell you about co-authors Windows Live Academic Search has similar goals Kazaa, Instant Messengers, Skype, Napster, BitTorrent for P2P Collaboration – text, audio-video conferencing, files Note sharing resources creates (implicit) communities Social network tools study graphs to both define communities and extract their properties

Connotea Connotea is run by Nature and is useful for collecting research links Here is 177 parallel computing links selected on Meeting Useful extension of del.icio.us

4 “Best Web 2.0 Sites” Extracted from Social Networking Start Pages Social Bookmarking Peer Production News Social Media Sharing Online Storage (Computing)

5 Why Web 2.0 is Useful Captures the incredible development of interactive Web sites enabling people to create and collaborate

6 Web 2.0 v Grid I Web 2.0 allows people to nurture the Internet Cloud and such people got Time’s person of year award Platt in his Blog (courtesy Hinchcliffe identifies key Web 2.0 features as: The Web and all its connected devices as one global platform of reusable services and data Data consumption and remixing from all sources, particularly user generated data Continuous and seamless update of software and data, often very rapidly Rich and interactive user interfaces Architecture of participation that encourages user contribution Whereas Grids support Internet scale Distributed Services Maybe Grids focus on (number of) Services (there aren’t many scientists) and Web 2.0 focuses on number of People But they are basically same!

Web 2.0 v Grid II Web 2.0 has a set of major services like GoogleMaps or Flickr but the world is composing Mashups that make new composite services End-point standards are set by end-point owners Many different protocols covering a variety of de-facto standards 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 Popular Web 2.0 technologies are PHP, JavaScript, JSON, AJAX and REST with “Start Page” e.g. (Google Gadgets) interfaces Popular Grid technologies are Apache Axis, BPEL WSDL and SOAP with portlet interfaces Robustness of Grids demanded by the Enterprise? Not so clear that Web 2.0 won’t eventually dominate other application areas and with Enterprise 2.0 it’s invading Grids The world does itself in large numbers!

8 Mashups v Workflow? Mashup Tools are reviewed at Workflow Tools are reviewed by Gannon and Fox 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)

9 Grid Workflow Datamining in Earth Science Work with Scripps Institute Grid services controlled by workflow process real time data from ~70 GPS Sensors in Southern California Streaming Data Support Transformations Data Checking Hidden Markov Datamining (JPL) Display (GIS) NASA GPS Earthquake Real Time Archival

10 Web 2.0 uses all types of Services Here a Gadget Mashup uses a 3 service workflow with a JavaScript Gadget Client

Web 2.0 APIs currently (March ) 388 Web 2.0 APIs with GoogleMaps the most used in Mashups This site acts as a “UDDI” for Web 2.0

The List of Web 2.0 API’s Each site has API and its features Divided into broad categories Only a few used a lot (34 API’s used in more than 10 mashups) RSS feed of new APIs

3 more Mashups each day For a total of 1609 March Note ClearForest runs Semantic Web Services Mashup competitions (not workflow competitions) Some Mashup types: aggregators, search aggregators, visualizers, mobile, maps, games Growing number of commercial Mashup Tools

14 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) Indiana Map Grid (Mashup)

15 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 Cache Server Adapter 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

16 Mash Planet Web 2.0 Architecture -it.org/mashplanet Display too large to be a Gadget

17 Searched on Transit/Transportation

18 Grid-style portal as used in Earthquake Grid 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

19 Portlets v. Google Gadgets Portals for Grid Systems are built using portlets with software like GridSphere integrating these on the server-side into a single web-page 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 Google is more user friendly! The many Web 2.0 competitions is an interesting model for promoting development in the world-wide distributed collection of Web 2.0 developers I guess Web 2.0 model will win! Note the many competitions powering Web 2.0 Mashup Development

Typical Google Gadget Structure … Lots of HTML and JavaScript 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

APIs/Mashups per Protocol Distribution RESTSOAPXML-RPCREST, XML-RPC REST, XML-RPC, SOAP REST, SOAP JSOther google maps netvibes live.com virtual earth google search amazon S3 amazon ECS flickr ebay youtube 411sync del.icio.us yahoo! search yahoo! geocoding technorati yahoo! images trynt yahoo! local Number of Mashups Number of APIs

HTTP v SOAP v WS-* v Grid Quote from user trying to use ClearForest SOAP API when first released: “How about a REST interface or at least a simpler web interface with a GET or POST form (minus the frames). This would be a preferable option for many mashup environments, compared to SOAP.” ClearForest offered a REST API within the week. Microsoft DSS is an interesting high performance service infrastructure supporting SOAP and HTTP Runs well on multicore as well as distributed systems Mashups can support multiple protocols but “equilibrium” is an evolution to simplest protocols as advantage of complicated protocols gets thrown away

Timing of HP Opteron Multicore as a function of number of simultaneous two-way service messages processed (November 2006 DSS Release) Measurements of Axis 2 shows about 500 microseconds – DSS is substantially faster DSS Service Measurements

24 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 Mashups are workflow (and vice versa) Portals are start pages and portlets could be gadgets

25 OGF Activities White paper on Web 2.0 and Grids Use Web 2.0 Services like YouTube, MySpace, Maps Build e(Cyber)infrastructure with Web 2.0 Technologies like Ajax, JSON, Gadgets Two Web 2.0 OGF21 workshops on Commercial Web 2.0 (Catlett) Web 2.0 and Grids (De Roure, Fox, Gentzsch, Kielmann) Sessions (each one invited plus contributed papers) on: Implications of Web2.0 on eScience Implications of Web2.0 on OGSA (Grids) Implications of Web2.0 on Enterprise Implications of Web2.0 on Digital Libraries/repositories