I think in the MUWS spec document that I state "unless
otherwise noted, a resource is a WSDM resource."
My two cents,
Vaughn
From: Wilson, Kirk D [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 1:53 PM
To:
Subject: RE: [wsdm] WS-RF Resources vs. WSDM
Resources
Bryan, I must admit that
don’t believe my diagram helps very much in understanding the relationship
between MOWS and MUWS. While this little exercise has been helpful to me,
I have no qualms about whacking the section.
Actually, except for
Figure 1, “WS-Resource” doesn’t appear in the text of MOWS. I might have
misunderstood the goal of the editing exercise. I think “resource” is used
fairly consistently as a generic resource with appropriate adjectives like
“manageable” in the MOWS text. Things like “WSDM resource” and “WS-RF
Resource” don’t appear, but I’ll check that. If we eliminate references to
WSDM- and WS-RF and WS- resources—all the more reason to whack
2.4.
I would tend to agree
that these diagrams only make it more difficult to understand the simple idea of
exposing manageability via XML and Web services by complicating it with the
semantics of UML.
I’ll wait to hear from
others and for a discussion in a conf call of these issues before I make the
final decision to delete the section.
Whatever I do, I will
remove the right side of my diagram with respect to “Manageabiity
interfaces”—yes, the notion is now eliminated.
Kirk
Wilson
Architect,
Development
Office of the
CTO
802
765-4337
-----Original
Message-----
From:
Murray, Bryan P.
[mailto:]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 1:25
PM
To: Wilson,
Kirk D;
Subject: RE: [wsdm] WS-RF Resources vs.
WSDM Resources
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?
1.
Keep the section and diagram as it
current is?
2.
Replace with it with the attached
(perhaps with minor tweaks)
3.
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:>
