[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dcml-frame] Implementation Subgroup
Hey Zulah. Yes, we had some draft use cases that we were working off of, but we never finalized and published them. I'll see if I can dig them up. -- Tim Zulah Eckert wrote: > > Okay - I'm going to assume that the Nov 27,2004 version that I have been > reading is roughly the same. > > Was there any compilation of use scenarios to go along with this > specification? Or requirements? > > Zulah Eckert, Ph.D. > Sr. Principal Technologist, > Office of the CTO > Phone: +1-408.228.2115 > zeckert@bea.com > > BEA Systems, Inc. > Corporate Office, USA > 2315 North First Street > San Jose, CA 95131 > www.bea.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Howes [mailto:howes@opsware.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 8:58 PM > To: Zulah Eckert > Cc: Cummins, Fred A; dcml-frame@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [dcml-frame] Implementation Subgroup > > Hm..Perhaps I have confused people, for which I apologize. > Zulah, here's a link to the spec I'm talking about: > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dcml-frame/download.php/102 > 66/DCML%20Framework%20v13.pdf > > This is the spec that we came up with a little over a year ago, just > before the merge with OASIS. It defines the DCML syntax that one would > use to represent information in DCML, e.g., for transmission between > management systems. > > As far as what has been decided, I don't claim that we have decided > anything. What we've got is a proposal on the table that has not gotten > any traction (that's the bad news), yet no other concrete proposal has > been put forward to compete with it (that's the worse news). > > So, here's what I am thinking. We need some mechanism that will help us > judge the technical merits of our proposal, tell us whether it solves > the problems we are trying to solve, or whether it is too complicated, > missing key pieces, etc. > > Being an engineer at heart, and having had the experience in the > Internet standards process at IETF of coupling successfully > implementation with standardization, I believe that is a good way to > judge the merits of any proposal and to help focus our efforts. > -- Tim > > Zulah Eckert wrote: > >>Hi Tim, >> >>Could you send a pointer to the current specification that you are >>refering to? It would be good if we were all on the same page with >>respect to what has been decided. >> >>Thanks, >> >>Zulah Eckert, Ph.D. >>Sr. Principal Technologist, >>Office of the CTO >>Phone: +1-408.228.2115 >>zeckert@bea.com >> >>BEA Systems, Inc. >>Corporate Office, USA >>2315 North First Street >>San Jose, CA 95131 >>www.bea.com >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Tim Howes [mailto:howes@opsware.com] >>Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 1:01 PM >>To: Cummins, Fred A >>Cc: dcml-frame@lists.oasis-open.org >>Subject: Re: [dcml-frame] Implementation Subgroup >> >>I agree, we need to identify the interfaces. But frankly an interface >>in a document is not worth nearly as much as an interface combined >>with an actual implemtation of that interface. And since we've already > > >>defined the key data interface in the current specification, we should > > >>implement it to see if it works. If it doesn't, or it's the wrong >>interface, or whatever, we should sharpen >>our pencils and try again. -- Tim >> >>Cummins, Fred A wrote: >> >> >>>Tim, >>> >>>My expectation was to focus on interfaces to services to achieve >>>interoperability between products developed by different vendors. >>>OASIS specifications for DCML should define interfaces and product >>>vendors should define implementations. >>> >>>We should identify and specify priority interface(s) that have market >>>value and would be implemented by product vendors. >>> >>>Fred >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Tim Howes [mailto:howes@opsware.com] >>>>Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 3:30 PM >>>>To: dcml-frame@lists.oasis-open.org >>>>Subject: [dcml-frame] Implementation Subgroup >>>> >>>>Hi all. Here's what I think the implementation subgroup that we >>>>talked >> >> >>>>about on today's call should focus on. >>>>Please send me your comments, but this is what I've >>>>had in mind. -- Tim >>>> >>>>The implementation subgroup is tasked with creating a freely >>>>available >> >> >>>>open source implementation of a DCML- based solution to the ITIL >>>>configuration management problem as described by the process > > subgroup. > >> >>>>The first use case implemented will be one that incorporates CIM and >>>>other data sources. This implementation will >>>>provide: >>>> >>>>- a concrete example that furthers people's understanding of DCML, >>>>how it relates to CIM, and the problems that it is meant to solve; >>>> >>>>- example code that will encourage vendors to create their own >>>>implementations; >>>> >>>>- a proving ground for changes to our use cases, the technical >>>>definition of DCML itself, and the relationship between DCML and >>>>other standards. >>>> >>>>The implementation will strive to be of actual use, but more >>>>important >> >> >>>>is its educational purpose. As such, we will strive to make it very >>>>easy to download and get started with (e.g., download and run in less > > >>>>than >>>>5 minutes). >>>> >>>>Our deliverables include >>>> >>>>- Detailed description of what we will build >>>> >>>>- Detailed project plan with milestones and dates >>>> >>>>- The software itself >>>> >>>>- Documentation and other materials >>>> >>>> >> >> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]