Re: [wsdm] F2F agenda item

It looks like we have a variety of opinions on this topic - 
which is exactly why we need to talk about it!

 

Zulah brings up some good questions we should answer about 
capabilities before making any decisions about how to represent 
them.

 

I just want to point out that the WSDM specs currently 
define a capability by using WSDL and schema to create a portType, thus equating 
a capability to a portType (or interface) - this is option #1. Thus defined I 
believe it is difficult to define the same property in more than one capability. 
In the end, the interface aggregation mechanism used by WSRF will result in a 
single occurrence of any property QName in the final 
portType.

 

XML schema does discuss a means of "extending" a 
complexType, however, WSDL does not provide any means to "extend" a portType. 
Without a clear definition of how to extend a capability, it is not meaningful 
to discuss "extending" a capability. It is not sufficient just to say that a 
capability is extensible - you must explain how to do this. Reading the XML 
schema, WSDL, and WSDM specs do not provide enough information about how to 
extend a capability.

 

There are advantages to both definitions of capability. As 
David points out with #1 you know exactly what properties and operations the 
resource supports if you know it supports a capability (determining whether it 
supports the capability is another matter). And as Homayoun points out #2 offers 
more flexibility in terms of having properties belong to more than one 
capability and in adding properties to a capability later or even from a 
different namespace.

 

I think we need to discuss what we want from capabilities 
(Zulah's questions might help), and then see how the 2 ways of representing them 
address what we want.

 

Bryan

 

From: David E Cox [mailto:] 

Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 5:58 PM
To: Homayoun 
Pourheidari
Cc: 
Subject: Re: 
[wsdm] F2F agenda item

Hi Homayoun, 

  The way I read #1, the specific combination or set 
of properties, operations, and notifications would be a capability and would 
presumably have a name.  I think that the individual properties, 
operations, and notifications can certainly be used in other combinations to 
create different capabilities with different names. 

  So, I don't think #1 means that capabilities have 
to be mutually exclusive.  I also don't think #1 prevents one from 
combining capabilities into "composite" capabilities or from "extending" a 
capability by adding new properties/operations/notifications to create a more 
specific capability. 

  I 
personally like #1; I think it gives some structure to the whole mess! 
 When you refer to a capability by name, you know what is in it.  We 
can still create the concept of categorization described in #2, but it should be 
called something other than "capability".  How about "capability 
category"? 
  
Regards,
David E Cox 

  
  

    Homayoun Pourheidari 
      <> 
      
06/27/2005 04:11 AM 
      
        
        

          
            
Please respond 
            to
Homayoun Pourheidari

    
      
        
        

          
            
To

          "Murray, Bryan P." 
            <> 
        

          
            
cc

           
        

          
            
Subject

          Re: [wsdm] F2F agenda 
            item

      
        
        

          
          

+1 for the second choice.

As I recall, there were many use 
cases where a property or an
operation can belong to different management 
capabilities that one may
define.  Of course, you can go out of your way 
to define "capability"
categories that are mutually exclusive.  But I 
believe that is not how
most people would relate to manageability 
information.

A wsdm capability should be considered a meta data that can 
be
attached to various components of manageability information to form 
a
category that provides a meaningful manageability 
semantic.

Cheers,
H.
--

On 6/25/05, Murray, Bryan P. 
<> wrote:
> I had an internal discussion about 
WSDM capabilities today that makes me
> wonder if all of the WSDM TC 
understand capabilities in the same way.
> Heather could you add an agenda 
item to talk briefly about capabilities
> during the f2f.
> 
> 
As a teaser, the 2 ways of looking at capabilities are:
> 
> 1) A 
capability is a set of properties, operations, and notifications
> 
described by WSDL/schema. Once defined, the capability has a fixed set
> 
of properties, operations, and notifications - it is like a portType,
> 
forever constant.
> 
> 2) A capability is a means of categorization. 
Capabilities are defined
> independent of properties, operations, 
notifications. Any property,
> operation, notification can be assigned to 
zero or more capabilities to
> show that they have something to do with 
that category of functionality.
> A capability has nothing to do with a 
portType and new properties can
> claim they are associated with an 
existing capability.
> 
> Bryan
> 
> 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To 
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> 
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in 
OASIS
> at:
> 
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> 

>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To 
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates 
this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in 
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php