Global Grids Web 2.0 and Globalization - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – Global Grids Web 2.0 and Globalization PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 3b96ef-OWQ0N


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

Global Grids Web 2.0 and Globalization


Global Grids Web 2.0 and Globalization Indiana University Informatics Colloquium January 12 2007 Geoffrey Fox Computer Science, Informatics, Physics – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:105
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 58
Provided by: gridsUcsI


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Global Grids Web 2.0 and Globalization

Global Grids Web 2.0 and Globalization
  • Indiana University
  • Informatics Colloquium
  • January 12 2007
  • Geoffrey Fox
  • Computer Science, Informatics, Physics
  • Pervasive Technology Laboratories
  • Indiana University Bloomington IN 47401
  • http//

  • We discuss the role of Web 2.0 and
    Cyberinfrastructure (also called e-infrastructure
    and implemented by Grid technology) in a variety
    of global and globalization activities.
  • These include the linking of researchers and data
    world wide in many fields new generations of
    digital libraries and tools like Google Scholar
    study of ice-sheets at the poles and the dramatic
    impact of Global warming the study of
    earthquakes across the Pacific ocean the linking
    of apparel manufacturers in Asia to designers in
    different continents and the command and control
    system for the Department of Defense.
  • Conversely Web 2.0 and Cyberinfrastructure are
    inherently democratic and support the broadening
    of communities involved in science and business.
  • They allow members of the Navajo Nation to
    participate in society and commerce from their
    homeland while many see this infrastructure as
    allowing broader participation in Science. We
    discuss recent efforts to implement these dreams!

Why Cyberinfrastructure Useful
  • Supports distributed science data, people,
  • Exploits Internet technology (Web2.0) adding (via
    Grid technology) management, security,
    supercomputers etc.
  • It has two aspects parallel low latency
    (microseconds) between nodes and distributed
    highish latency (milliseconds) between nodes
  • Parallel needed to get high performance on
    individual 3D simulations, data analysis etc.
    must decompose problem
  • Distributed aspect integrates already distinct
  • Cyberinfrastructure is in general a distributed
    collection of parallel systems
  • Cyberinfrastructure is made of services (usually
    Web services) that are just programs or data
    sources packaged for distributed access

e-moreorlessanything and Cyberinfrastructure
  • e-Science is about global collaboration in key
    areas of science, and the next generation of
    infrastructure that will enable it. from its
    inventor John Taylor Director General of Research
    Councils UK, Office of Science and Technology
  • e-Science is about developing tools and
    technologies that allow scientists to do faster,
    better or different research
  • Similarly e-Business captures an emerging view of
    corporations as dynamic virtual organizations
    linking employees, customers and stakeholders
    across the world.
  • The growing use of outsourcing is one example
  • The Grid or Web 2.0 (Enterprise 2.0) provides the
    information technology e-infrastructure for
  • A deluge of data of unprecedented and inevitable
    size must be managed and understood.
  • People (see Web 2.0), computers, data and
    instruments must be linked.
  • On demand assignment of experts, computers,
    networks and storage resources must be supported

Virtual Observatory Astronomy GridIntegrate
Dust Map
Visible X-ray
Galaxy Density Map
Grid Capabilities for Science
  • Open technologies for any large scale distributed
    system that is adopted by industry, many sciences
    and many countries (including UK, EU, USA, Asia)
  • Security, Reliability, Management and state
  • Service and messaging specifications
  • User interfaces via portals and portlets
    virtualizing to desktops, email, PDAs etc.
  • 20 TeraGrid Science Gateways (their name for
  • OGCE Portal technology effort led by Indiana
  • Uniform approach to access distributed
    (super)computers supporting single (large) jobs
    and spawning lots of related jobs
  • Data and meta-data architecture supporting
    real-time and archives as well as federation
  • Links to Semantic web and annotation
  • Grid (Web service) workflow with standards and
    several successful instantiations (such as
    Taverna and MyLead)
  • Many Earth science grids including ESG (DoE),
  • http//

Old and New (Web 2.0) Community Tools
  • e-mail and list-serves are oldest and best used
  • Kazaa, Instant Messengers, Skype, Napster,
    BitTorrent for P2P Collaboration text,
    audio-video conferencing, files
  •, 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
  • http//
  • Writely, 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
  • Windows Live Academic Search has similar goals
  • Note sharing resources creates (implicit)
  • Social network tools study graphs to both define
    communities and extract their properties

Best Web 2.0 Sites -- 2006
  • Extracted from http//
  • Social Networking
  • Start Pages
  • Social Bookmarking
  • Peer Production News
  • Social Media Sharing
  • Online Storage (Computing)

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

Web 2.0 v Grid I
  • Web 2.0 allows people to nurture the Internet
    Cloud and such people got Times person of year
  • 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
  • Maybe Grids focus on (number of) Services (there
    arent 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
  • 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 wont eventually
    dominate other application areas and with
    Enterprise 2.0 its invading Grids

Mashups v Workflow?
  • Mashup Tools are reviewed at http//
  • 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)

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

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
  • http// currently
    (Jan 10 2007) 356 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 APIs
  • Each site has API and its features
  • Divided into broad categories
  • Only a few used a lot (31 APIs used in more than
    10 mashups)
  • RSS feed of new APIs

Mashup Matrix
Indiana Map Grid(Mashup)
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)
Google Maps Server
Cass County Map Server (OGC Web Map Server)
Hamilton County Map Server (AutoDesk)
Marion County Map Server (ESRI ArcIMS)
Must provide adapters for each Map Server type .
Browser client fetches image tiles for the
bounding box using Google Map API.
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.
The cache server fulfills Google map calls with
cached tiles at the requested bounding box that
fill the bounding box.
Browser Google Map API
Mash Planet Web 2.0 Architecture
http// Display too
large to be a Gadget
Searched on Transit/Transportation
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

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!

Typical Google Gadget Structure
  • Lots of HTML and JavaScript lt/Contentgt lt/Modulegt

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
So there is more or less no architecture
difference between Grids and Web 2.0 and we will
use e-infrastructure or Cyberinfrastructure to
refer to either architecture
  • 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

Grids/Web 2.0 enable distributed activities to
be effective
  • Enable Generalized Outsourcing Enterprises can
    be split with components (centers of expertise)
  • Software is easiest as all electronic but also
    can link
  • Apparel Industry i.e. Manufacturing
  • Sports training
  • Change model for Publishers and Libraries as
    current model where publishers own material fits
    poorly with technology as prevents innovative
  • Enable new communities to contribute to research,
    education and commerce
  • The advantages of R1 powerhouses with
    concentrated expertise are reduced by electronic
    linkage of distributed new contributors
  • The Navajo communities can be integrated and
    participate in global activities from their
  • Enable new generation of open powerful
    distributed systems supporting
  • Command and Control (Crisis Management in
    civilian application)
  • Study of impact of Global warming on polar
  • Integration of sensors and simulation for
    Earthquake prediction

  • Much of the worlds manufacturing industry is
    globalized and the apparel/textile industry is
  • We are working with Hong Kong Textile Industry to
    link the Asian manufacturers with
    design/marketing/purchase functions elsewhere
    (USA, Europe)
  • Need to exchange designs, available fabrics and
  • Good example of e-infrastructure enabling
    specialization in one geographical area to thrive
  • Software and digital animation outsourcing are
    other good examples

  • YouTube illustrates asynchronous video sharing
    and video conferencing illustrates synchronous
    video sharing
  • One can link trainers (or spectators) and
    athletes (exercisers) globally with real time
    video supporting video and text annotation
  • Technically hard due to network issues and
    allowing real-time playing of annotated video
  • Exploring with China and HPER
  • Note IU could export coaching in Soccer,
    Basketball etc
  • Example of e-infrastructure supporting
    geographically distributed specialization

Semantic Scholars Grid
Web 2.0
Windows Live Academic Search
Traditional GridCyberinfrastructure
ExportRSS, BibtexEndnote etc.
Google Scholar
Generic Document Tools
CMT ConferenceManagement
Manuscript Central
Community Tools
Integration/Enhancement User Interface
Existing User Interface
New Document-enhanced Research Tools
Existing Documentbased Tools
Delicious Semantic Web/Grid
  • http// purchased by Yahoo for 30M
  • http//
  • http// (Nature)
  • Associate metadata with Bookmarks specified by
    URLs, DOIs (Digital Object Identifiers)
  • Users add comments and keywords (called tags)
  • Users are linked together into groups
  • Information such as title and authors extracted
    automatically from some sites (PubMed, ACM, IEEE,
    Wiley etc.)
  • Bibtex like additional information in CiteULike
  • This is perhaps de facto Semantic Web
    remarkable for its simplicity
  • We built Mashup linking to,
    CiteULike, Connotea allowing exchange of tags
    between sites and between local repositories
  • Repositories (MyResearch) also link to local
    sources (PubsOnline) and Google Scholar and
    Microsoft Academic Live

31 Tags
General Document Semantic Analysis
  • Citeseer and Google Scholar scour the Internet
    and analyze documents for incidental metadata
  • Title, author and institution of documents
  • Citations with their own metadata allowing one to
    match to other documents
  • These capabilities are sure to become more
    powerful and to be extended
  • Give Citation Index in real time
  • Tell you all authors of all papers that cite a
    paper that cites you etc. (Note its a small
    world so dont go too far in link analysis)
  • Tell you all citations of all papers in a
  • Helps journal editor by suggesting referees based
    on document analysis or by doing a plagiarism
    analysis by scoring comparison with other
    Internet documents

Domain Specific Semantic Document Analysis
  • It is natural to develop core document Services
    such as those used in Citeseer/Google Scholar but
    applied to your documents of interest that may
    not have been processed yet
  • As just submitted to a conference perhaps
  • These tools can help form useful lists such as
    authors of all cited or submitted papers to a
  • OSCAR3 (from Peter Murray-Rusts group at
    Cambridge) augments the application independent
    core metadata (Title, authors, institutions,
    Citations) with a list of all chemical terms
  • This tool is a Service that can be applied to
    your document or to a set of documents
    harvested in some fashion
  • Luis Rocha has developed related ideas for
  • Other fields have natural application specific
    metadata and OSCAR like tools can be developed
    for them
  • This is another Semantic Scholar Grid Tool

OSCAR3 Chemistry Document analysis
  • It detects magic chemical strings in text and
  • Stores them as metadata associated with document
  • Queries ChemInformatics repositories to tell you
    lots of information about identified compounds
  • Tells you which other documents have this compound

Initial Results from OSCAR on PubMed
  • We have a small sample (100) of full text
    Chemistry papers selected at random from 15 years
    of PubMed with over 5 million abstracts
  • OSCAR3 generates 4.17 compound names per abstract
  • and 36.7 compound names per full text
  • 555,007 PubMed abstracts of 2005 2006 (part)
    used for Abstracts (on Big Red)
  • Illustrates how much knowledge journal publishers
    are hiding from us

CICC Chemical Informatics Cyberinfrastructure
MOAD Database
Integrating document (OSCAR) and conventional
services on the IU Big Red Supercomputer
PubMed Database
OSCAR Text Analysis
Toxicity Filtering
Cluster Grouping
PubChem Database
Initial 3D Structure Calculation
NIH PubChem Database
NIH PubChem Database
Molecular Mechanics Calculations
Product databases are wrapped with Web service
interfaces and are suitable for inclusion in
Taverna workflows.
Quantum Mechanics Calculations
IUs Varuna Database
POV-Ray Parallel Rendering
Knowledge Model for Scientific Journals
  • There are classes of scientific journals
  • Large circulation society journals effectively
    subsidized by fees of professional society
    membership circulations can be more than 10,000
  • Popular magazine style journals
  • A few prestigious journals
  • Many specialized journals publishing archival
    refereed papers with circulations from one
    hundred to a few thousand
  • The specialized journals largely sell a mix of
    paper and (a growing number of) electronic
    subscriptions to libraries and very few
    individuals subscribe
  • Access is limited and expensive
  • Even if one subscribes, one is often restricted
    on the number of full text papers one can access
  • Collections like PubMed only include abstracts
  • Systems like OSCAR3, Google Scholar, Microsoft
    Academic Live and Citeseer cannot fully analyze
    knowledge in papers unless get access to full
  • Current publishing model hindering and not
    helping science
  • Similar discussion for journal papers and
    research data

Publishing Business Model in the Internet Age
  • Journal publishing currently has a business model
    where the price reflects neither the cost nor the
  • Publishers currently do not have significant
    internal expertise in new approaches/technologies
    to drive new business models
  • However much is outsourced already and so one can
    outsource to organizations with new expertise
    e.g. to those that know Web 2.0 rather than
    putting ink on paper
  • There is no clear new business model but
    plausible that current model will not survive for
    that long
  • So need to change even if less lucrative or
    success unclear
  • Note libraries provide funds to publishers and
    libraries will continue
  • Some think that one role of university libraries
    will be curation of data produced by university
    faculty and this will move naturally to different
    business models

Strengths of Current Publishing Model
  • Permanent guaranteed archival storage but there
    are other approaches such as Amazon S3 to this
  • Uniform look and feel and copyediting to remove
    language errors.
  • Useful but not so valuable that we can trade
    access for this.
  • In particular can only correct some language
    errors as only a subject expert can really
    rewrite in good grammar and expression
  • Refereeing of a quality implied by the journal
    and the editorial board
  • Most important strength but business model does
    not directly reflect this as only a small part of
    subscription price goes to editorial function
  • For most papers cost of refereeing much less than
    other costs of producing paper
  • Not clear why viewer should pay for refereeing
  • Large amount of pre-existing papers from old
    issues of journals

Pressures on Current Publishing Model
  • Mandated open access to scholarly work funded by
  • Cornyn-Lieberman bill in the US
  • NIH PubMed Central requires deposited of full
    text of articles after a length of time
  • Electronic access to publisher sites is not
    especially good
  • Division of articles into journals and publishers
    is not very helpful today where technology does
    not care about location of information
  • Location is just a rather simple annotation (meta
    data) specifying aspects of provenance of article
  • Publishing on the Internet is not a valuable
    service and has been addressed by Web servers in
    general and by Web 2.0 in attractive ways
  • Essentially nobody reads or even has access to
    paper copies of journal
  • Not clear it is useful to print specialized
    journals on paper

Scholarly Research Community Site
  • Best product should allow one to make best use of
    knowledge in scholarly publications and data but
    not be tied to fragile attractive services
  • So preserve data (annotations, comments, people)
    managed by services separately
  • Should integrate journal and conference
    publications and services
  • Should contain integrated or support outside
    services for curation, annotation, analysis and
  • Content is scholarly journals and data
  • Services include
  • Share data and set up communities
  • Annotation as in Connotes, CiteULike,
  • Semantic analysis for citations, authors,
    chemical compounds etc.
  • Biolicious style custom classifications including
    added value contacts
  • Search as in Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic
  • MySpace/Facebook/LinkedIn style services for
    existing or new contacts
  • Support of conference and journal refereeing
  • Other conference/journal services such as
    registration, advertising
  • Integration with research such as electronic log
  • Internal integration e.g. Authors in citations
    are linked to community
  • Links to more general document services such as
  • Online Office style Tools
  • WebEx type collaboration

Business Model for Scholarly Journal/Research
Community Site
  • One can charge for advertising, better content,
    better services or better implementation
  • Natural is to start with a basic free content and
    services with advertising.
  • Content must be free eventually by law
  • Services will have open source versions anyway so
    counter this with free basic services
  • One could use page charge model for charging for
  • One charges user for features that add value.
    These include
  • Better or better implemented community/digital
    library services
  • Premium Content possibly contracted by site owner
  • Problem with Advertising Business model Audience
    specialized (i.e. small) but upscale
  • Problem with charging for Community Tools
    Competing with free software but likely can offer
    much better service than free software just as
    WebEx does fine in spite of free VNC

Basic Idea of Cyberinfrastructure for MSIs
  • Cyberinfrastructure is critical to all involved
    in Research and Education
  • Cyberinfrastructure is intrinsically democratic
    supporting broad participation
  • MSIs (Minority-Serving Institutions) should lead
    MSI integration with Cyberinfrastructure to
    ensure it is truly useful for them and consistent
    with goals and constraints
  • One should guide the projects with experts
  • One should aim at scalable (systemic) approaches
  • Goal is peer collaborations involving all
    institutions of higher education

Some Key Organizations in MSI-CIEC
  • MSI-CIEC Minority-Serving Institution
    Cyberinfrastructure (CI) Empowerment Coalition
    involves UHD, IU, AIHEC, HACU, NAFEO
  • UHD University of Houston Downtown as a major
    Hispanic Serving Institution
  • Alliance for Equity in Higher Education. Working
    with the Alliance will have systemic impact on at
    least 335 Minority Serving Institutions covered
    by the
  • AIHEC American Indian Higher Education
  • HACU Hispanic Association of Colleges and
  • NAFEO National Association for Equal Opportunity
    in Higher Education
  • Indiana University is correctly not a very key
    organization here! We advise and will build a Web
    2.0 MSI Portal with 3 NSF and one (Lumina)
    foundation proposal

Minority Serving Institutions and the Grid
  • Historically the R1 Research University
    powerhouses dominated research due to their
    concentration of expertise
  • Cyberinfrastructure allows others to participate
    in same way it supports distributed open source
    software and distributed Web 2.0
  • Navajo Nation (Colorado Plateau covering over
    25,000 square miles in northeast Arizona,
    northwest New Mexico, and southeast Utah) with
    110 communities and over 40 unemployment.
    Building a wireless grid for education,
  • http// World Indigenous Nations
    Higher Education Consortium
  • Cyberinfrastructure allows Nations to preserve
    their geographical identity but participate fully
    with world class jobs and research
  • Some 335 MSIs in Alliance have similar hopes for
    Cyberinfrastructure to jump start their

Example Setting up a Polar CI-Grid
  • The North and South poles are melting with
    potential huge environmental impact
  • As a result of MSI meetings, I am working with
    MSI ECSU in North Carolina and Kansas University
    to design and set up a Polar Grid
  • This is a network of computers, sensors (on
    robots and satellites), data and people aimed at
    understanding science of ice-sheets and impact of
    global warming
  • We have changed the 100,000 year Glacier cycle
    into a 50 year cycle the field has increased
    dramatically in importance and interest
  • Good area to get involved in as not so much
    established work

(No Transcript)
(No Transcript)
  • Important Polar Grid Cyberinfrastructure
    components include
  • Managed data from sensors and satellites
  • Data analysis such as SAR processing possibly
    with parallel algorithms
  • Electromagnetic simulations (currently commercial
    codes) to design instrument antennas
  • 3D simulations of ice-sheets (glaciers) with
    non-uniform meshes
  • GIS Geographical Information Systems
  • Also need capabilities present in many Grids
  • Portal i.e. Science Gateway
  • Submitting multiple sequential or parallel jobs
  • Power/Bandwidth Challenged Expedition Grids

Polar Expeditions
Archival High Latency
Educationand Training
Real Time Monitor
Low Bandwidth
Core simulationand Data analysis
Field Base Camps
Existing IU
Real Time Monitor
Low Bandwidth
Existing CRESIS
Archival High Latency
Other Polar Sensors andSensor Aggregators (Non-po
lar and Polar Sites)
Prototype Base/Field Grid
APEC Cooperation for Earthquake Simulation
  • ACES is a seven year-long collaboration among
    scientists interested in earthquake and tsunami
  • iSERVO is Infrastructure to supportwork of ACES
  • SERVOGrid is (completed) US Grid that is a
    prototype of iSERVO
  • http//
  • Chartered under APEC the Asia Pacific Economic
    Cooperation of 21 economies

(No Transcript)
Ice Sheet PolarGrid
Earthquake SERVOGrid

Ice Sheet Sensors, SAR, Filters, EM, Glacier
Earthquake Data, Filters Simulation Services
Visualization Grid
Collaboration Grid
Sensor Grid
Compute Grid
GIS Grid
Data Access/Storage
Core Grid Services
Physical Network
Earth/Atmosphere Grids built as Grids of
(library) Grids
Net-Centric Grids
  • DoD has built the Global Information Grid (GiG)
    and developed a target architecture NCOW
    (Net-Centric Operations and Warfare)
  • There are nine core services NCES and various
    interesting principles such as OHIO (Only Handle
    Information once)
  • The NCES can be mapped into Grid and Web Services
  • DoD Grids are very similar to sensor rich science
    applications like the polar, tornado (LEAD) and
    earthquake problems
  • DoD Command and Control similar to civilian
    Emergency Response and Crisis Management

DoD Net-Centric Core Enterprise Services
DoD Core Features/Service Areas I
The Core Feature/Service Areas II