[kepler-dev] Re: [seek-dev] Re: scope, design of the Ecogrid registry vs Kepler registry

[Shawn Bowers]

Matt Jones wrote:

>> 3. How does it relate to the planned Kepler actor repository that we
>> have been talking about recently? (aka load an actor from a remote
>> repository kind of stuff...)
> 
> Well, the 'actor repository' hasn't really been designed, and what we've 
> talked about is far more on the local side than the server side.  See my 
> and Shawn's emails to the list regarding dynamic transfer of actors and 
> using LSID's to identify actors in a data store.  The EcoGrid registry 
> is closely aligned in purpose with the idea of an actor store, but we've 
> done far more design work and implementation on the EcoGrid registry.
> 
>>
>> It seems that a Kepler actor repository might very well subsume the
>> Ecogrid registry, since instantiated web service actors would have all 
>> the info that the Ecogrid service registry has and probably more
>> (e.g., semantic annotations)
> 
> Actually, I think its the other way around -- the EcoGrid registry is a 
> far broader concept.

I am a little less clear than Matt is here.  Since Kepler doesn't have 
native support for Web Services, they must be "sucked" into Kepler, 
e.g., through Ilkay's Web Service actor.  These services can then be 
further parameterized and saved via MoML.  And, ultimately, semantically 
annotated (we are focusing our semantic annotation on ptolemy not on web 
services in general).   Thus, *any* web service can be configured and 
stored in MoML as well as *any* "local" actors/parameters/directors, 
etc.  That seems more general, doesn't it?

Shawn