I think the focus being on the <whatever> that must be provided for a resource to be considered manageable is the correct way to go. We certainly should not be defining, or even implying implementation patterns for manageability. However, using existing management terms (often overloaded anyway), without defining them within the scope of our charter, could lead to that perception.
So as we all have agreed we need a glossary of terminology to at least start from, so we are all on the page while we complete requirements. The glossary will need to evolve and become more formal as we start the specification work, but for now I thought I'd stick my neck out and offer an opportunity for everyone to light their flamethrowers!
Many of the terms we need at this point have been defined in the requirements work completed by the MTF at the W3C and seem, to me, to be a good starting point (consensus on these terms by the members of the MTF, many of whom now participate on the TC). Granted they were defined specific to management of the Web services and elements of the Web services architecture, but with a little tweaking can be used for both the management of and management using Web services. MTFers will notice I've already tweaked the definitions submitted to the WSA group to fit both management using and of web services.
Manageable implies that a resource can effectively be managed by a Manager
Manageability implies the existence of a sufficient set of manageability capabilities such that a resource is manageable.
Manager the consumer of manageability capabilities offered by resources
Manageability capabilities include properties, operations and events exposed for the management of a resource.
Management is the utilization of the manageability capabilities by a Manager.
Managed implies that a resource's manageability capabilities are actively being utilised by a Manager.
Manageability interface is the interface through which manageability capabilities are exposed.
Manageability endpoint is the address at which the managebaility interface can be accessed.
Lets not get too pedantic or religious, about these they can change as we go through the work we have ahead, they are simply offered as a start point for the glossary to aid understanding and add clarity for the requirements.
Mark/
-----Original Message-----
From: Ellen Stokes [mailto:]
Sent: Thu 8/7/2003 7:49 PM
To:
Cc: Sedukhin, Igor S;
Subject: Re: [wsdm] Terminology in the requirements
Can we use instead the term 'managed entity'?
I suggest this because in discussions the words managed resource and
managed service caused many folks problems as well.
Ellen
"M. Homayoun Pourheidari" <>
08/07/2003 05:42 PM
Please respond to homayoun
To: "Sedukhin, Igor S" <>
cc:
Subject: Re: [wsdm] Terminology in the requirements
Igor, et. al
Although I agree with your general comment that we don't want to limit
ourselves to a traditional agent based model, I do not agree with your
interpretation of what a managed object means. In fact, the term "managed
object" is used to generalize on the manageability representation and
interfaces of a resource that is managed without promoting an agent based
or agent less model and I don't interpret the use of "managed object" as
you described it.
Nonetheless, I'm not religious about these things.
Cheers,
H.
--
Sedukhin, Igor S wrote:
We have a problem in agreeing to the requirements that state "managed
object MUST expose <whatever>". It prescribes certain way of doing
management. These requirements are on the "The software component
representing or part of the manageable resource responsible for
interacting with the manager is referred to as the managed object in this
document. Traditionally, such software is also known as agent."
We do not want to be limited by defining requirements on management using
agents as suggested.
We propose to use more generic phrasing around ALL of such requirements.
For example, We propose to phrase it as follows "<whatever> MUST be
provided for a manageable resource". This phrase says WHAT instead of
implying HOW.
PS. By "we" here I mean CA. And this is a violent objection :).
-- Igor Sedukhin .. ()
-- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788
--
M. Homayoun Pourheidari
Web Services Management Operation
HP OpenView Division
408.447.5012
You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsdm/members/leave_workgroup.php
