MOWS provides a management model for a Web service that is
specifically tailored for access from MUWS.
Section 2.4 does not help me understand that is what MOWS
is trying to accomplish. I recommend we remove section 2.4 from MOWS. For that
matter, I suggest we remove section 2.3 from MUWS.
Kirk - I think your new diagram is somewhat better than the
existing one (its missing some of the blatant lies in the original),
however it does not help with the confusion issue.
I thought we were going to modify the text so we did not
reference either WSRF-resource (or WS-Resource) or WSDM-resource in both MUWS
and MOWS. These terms don't help us understand that we are exposing
manageability of resources using an XML representation of the resource
accessed through a Web service.
Manageability capabilities are no longer associated with an
interface. Any property, operation, and notification can be associated with zero
or more manageability capabilities independent of which interface it is
in.
Bryan
From: Wilson, Kirk D [mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 4:42 AM
To:
Subject: [wsdm] WS-RF Resources vs. WSDM
Resources
One of the things we would like to
do in WSDM 1.1 is to make sure that when the text refers to a resource, it is
clear whether the reference is to a WS-RF Resource or a WSDM Resource. The
fundamental difference between the two, as I believe has been discussed, is that
a WS-RF Resource is a “logical entity”, well, something abstract, whereas a WSDM
is anything that is of interest to manage. As editor of the MOWS spec, I
started this AI to make sure the text was correct and consistent by looking at
the so-called “mind-map” in section 2.4 of the MOWS spec. The most
significant thing that the diagram does over the corresponding (but slightly
different diagram in section 2.3 of MUWS Part 1) is to make a Web service
endpoint a “resource”. Is that really what we want it to say—isn’t the
“resource” under MOWS the Web service that is being managed, not its
endpoint. At any rate, the use of the “resource” still left open the whole
question of what is the relationship between a WS-RF Resource or a WSDM
Resource—which is it?
Also, I believe we have eliminated
the notion of the “manageability capability interface” as a specifically
specified “thing” that represents 1 manageability capability in recent decisions
about what a Manageability Capability is. Is that correct, Bryan? At least, it
seems to be a subtlety that could be eliminated.
So, I have attached another
mind-map, which, IMHO, better expresses the relationship of Resource, WSDM
Resource and WS-RF Resource. By just “Resource”, I refer to one of the
general definitions of “resource”, e.g., IETF, W3C, or an RDF-definition.
Comments would be appreciated—if only to make sure I’m on the right
track.
This is also a “straw” poll for what
to do about section 2.4 of MOWS?
Keep the section and diagram as it
current is?
Replace with it with the attached
(perhaps with minor tweaks)
Whack the section and forget about
having a “mind-map”.
Kirk Wilson
Computer
Associates
Architect,
Development
Office of the CTO
Tele: + 1 802 765-4337
Fax:
+ 1 802 765-4339
<mailto:>
