RE: [wsdm] Terminology in the requirements

["Mark Potts" <mark.potts@talkingblocks.com>]

Andrea  

Thanks for the feedback. 

The idea of using capability was to define a capability in the context
of management as being either provision of information or actions for
management purposes. I agree capabilities and current configuration are
different things. I see current configuration of the manageability, not
the resource itself, as manageability meta data (see below) and wasn't
trying to use capability in that context. I was also trying to be
consistent with consensus reached in the W3C MTF and the WSA terminology
in their glossary (http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-ws-gloss-20030808/).

I do have a concern with "capability" being used in the way it is the
final definition you added. A capability defined as "THE POSSIBLE
MANAGEABILITY INTERFACES, THEIR CONFIGURATION AND INFORMATION THAT CAN
BE EXPOSED THROUGH THESE INTERFACES". If I understand this right , it
sounds like information about the manageability rather than information
about the resource and is in effect manageability meta data (I wasn't
completely sure this is what you meant as the definition says "AND
INFORMATION THAT CAN BE EXPOSED THROUGH THESE INTERFACES" and I wasn't
sure if the information you refer to was restricted to configuration of
manageability only).

We can either move to the more definitive examples you have or perhaps
define what mean by a capability in the context of management, then use
the term throughout the other definitions. We will need to differentiate
between management information pertinent to the resource and the
manageability itself however.

Thoughts?

Mark/


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrea Westerinen [mailto:andreaw@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 6:07 PM
> To: Mark Potts; 'Ellen Stokes'; homayoun@hp.com
> Cc: 'Sedukhin, Igor S'; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsdm] Terminology in the requirements
> 
> 
> Mark, I agree in general with the definitions, except for 
> one.... "manageability capabilities".  We have found in the 
> DMTF that capabilities and current choices/configuration are 
> different things. For example, your manageability information 
> may have the capability to be input or output in 4 different 
> languages, but your current configuration is to use English.  
> I would rather use the term "manageability information" to 
> convey properties, operations and events that can be exposed 
> - and then change the definitions as follows:
> 
> Manageable implies that a resource can effectively be managed 
> by a Manager (no change)
> 
> Manageability implies the existence of a sufficient set of 
> manageability INTERFACES and INFORMATION such that a resource 
> is manageable (removed the word, capabilities)
> 
> Manager is the consumer of manageability INFORMATION offered 
> by resources, THROUGH ONE OR MORE MANAGEABILITY INTERFACES 
> (removed the word, capabilities, and added the phrase 
> regarding interfaces)
> 
> Manageability INFORMATION INCLUDES properties, operations and 
> events exposed for the management of a resource (removed the 
> words, capabilities include)
> 
> Management is the utilization of the manageability INTERFACES 
> TO OBTAIN MANAGEABILITY INFORMATION by a Manager (removed the 
> word, capabilities) 
> 
> Managed implies that a resource's manageability INFORMATION 
> IS actively being utilised by a Manager (removed the words, 
> capabilities are)
> 
> Manageability interface is the interface through which 
> manageability INFORMATION IS exposed (removed the words, 
> capabilities are)
> 
> Manageability endpoint is the address at which the 
> manageability interface can be accessed (no change)
> 
> MANAGEABILITY CAPABILITIES DESCRIBE THE POSSIBLE 
> MANAGEABILITY INTERFACES, THEIR CONFIGURATION AND INFORMATION 
> THAT CAN BE EXPOSED THROUGH THESE INTERFACES (new)
> 
> Andrea
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Potts [mailto:mark.potts@talkingblocks.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 10:18 PM
> To: Mark Potts; Ellen Stokes; homayoun@hp.com
> Cc: Sedukhin, Igor S; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsdm] Terminology in the requirements
> 
> 
> Sorry... The terminology doesnt read as well with the HTML 
> formatting stripped from the mail - so attached is the same 
> mail in HTML.
> 
> 	-----Original Message----- 
> 	From: Mark Potts 
> 	Sent: Thu 8/7/2003 10:10 PM 
> 	To: Ellen Stokes; homayoun@hp.com 
> 	Cc: Sedukhin, Igor S; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org 
> 	Subject: RE: [wsdm] Terminology in the requirements
> 	
> 	
> 	 
> 
> 
>