But that just raises the issue, Ok, What is
a WSDM resource and why do you have to say that? What other “kinds”
of resources are there and how do they fit into the picture? So you end-up
with the issues Bryan is saying we would otherwise avoid if we just forget
about these special “types” of resources and go with natural descriptions
of resources.
Kirk Wilson
Architect, Development
Office of the CTO
802 765-4337
-----Original Message-----
From: Vaughn Bullard
[mailto:]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005
1:56 PM
To: Wilson, Kirk D;
Subject: RE: [wsdm] WS-RF
Resources vs. WSDM Resources
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:>
