Proposal on [Disc05]

["Andrea Westerinen" <andreaw@cisco.com>]

I think that the difference is more basic than known or not known by a
provider.  The difference is known and published by a provider (and perhaps
only known by the provider using some magic sauce) versus known by examining
intrinsic/basic data.  However, even this proposal leads to further
questions that can only be answered by a consistent backing model (like
CIM).

Let me explain further ... Igor's proposal is ok with me at a conceptual
level, but what happens when provider 1 lists all the properties below, but
provider 2 only lists ID and LogicalUnitNumber.  Is provider 2's ID the same
as provider 1's BusID, ChannelID or just ID?  What if it is all 3?  Is
LogicalUnitNumber the same as LUN?  Most likely, but a program doesn't know
this, only a person. What if provider 2 also lists the foo attribute?  So,
we make progress with an element like CorrelatableProperties, but we need
CIM to use it.  

Lastly, we have to convey that this is meta-data tied to the data of the
backing model, not raw intrinsic information.

Andrea 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sedukhin, Igor S [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 9:09 AM
> To: Vambenepe, William N; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [wsdm] RE: Proposal [Disc05] (was: RE: [wsdm] 
> Proposal on [Disc04])
> 
> 
> Ok, so be this my proposal to close [Disc05]. I guess it was 
> not clear to me as to what is the difference between 05 and 
> 04, but that is ok. Now I see that
> 	04 - if such relationship is known by providers
> 	05 - if such relationship is NOT known by providers
> 
> 
> -- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
> -- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vambenepe, William N [mailto:vbp@hp.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 6:22 PM
> To: Sedukhin, Igor S; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Proposal [Disc05] (was: RE: [wsdm] Proposal on [Disc04])
> 
> 
> Hi Igor,
> 
> I agree with you. The "relationship" approach only works if 
> the person we are talking to has knowledge of the other 
> manageability endpoints/representations. And you give a very 
> good example of a case where there are two manageability 
> endpoints/representations that are likely to not know about 
> one another. All WSDM is about at the end is defining 
> interfaces. If the person you talk to doesn't have the 
> information you are asking for, no amount of clever interface 
> design will make them give you the info.
> 
> This relationship mechanism to discover other manageability 
> endpoints is useful but is in no way guaranteed to give you 
> the whole list.
> 
> After this step, as you describe, we are left to using other 
> mechanisms to try to find even more manageability endpoints. 
> This is where the correlatable name mechanism might come in 
> handy, but at that point we are transitioning to [Disc05].
> 
> So I think we are on agreement on [Disc04] (let me know if 
> we're not) and I am renaming this thread to [Disc05] as you 
> are proposing a way to solve this issue.
> 
> You proposal to [Disc05] looks reasonable to me.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> William
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sedukhin, Igor S [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 8:06 AM
> > To: Vambenepe, William N; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [wsdm] Proposal on [Disc04]
> > 
> > 
> > William,
> > 
> > This will require manageability providers to know of other
> > manageability providers for the same resource. I do not think it is 
> > always reasonable.
> > 
> > If I implemented a co-located manageability provider that offers
> > resource state capability for a warehouse Web service, and then 
> > someone else implemented a proxy manageability provider offering 
> > metrics capability for the same service, they are not necessarily 
> > aware of each other. Morevover, they could be developed and 
> > instrantiated completely independently of each other.
> > 
> > So, my point is
> >  1) relationship may be defined for the cases where providers are
> > aware of each other
> >  2) for the general case, in the spec, we just say a) fetch 
> > ResourceID, b) discover all manageability endpoints with a given 
> > ResourceID c) there could be more (with different 
> ResourceIDs), so use 
> > "correlatable properoperties" capability (TBD).
> > 
> > The idea behind c) is that
> > 	- fetch all properties marked "correlatable"
> > 	- use generalized discovery to find all manageable 
> resources with
> > matching "correlatable property" values
> > 
> > For example, a SCSI HDD could mark the following properies as
> > "correlatable": host DNS name/IP, Bus#, Channel#, SCSI#, LUN#.
> > 
> > To be even more concrete I suggest to define "Correlatable 
> Properties"
> > capability as follows :)
> > 	1) a property muws-xs:CorrelatableProperties
> > 	2) value of which follows the example below
> > 
> > 	<muws-xs:CorrelatableProperties>
> > 		<muws-xs:MatchAny>
> > 			<muws-xs:Match>scsi:HostName</muws-xs:Match>
> > 			<muws-xs:Match>scsi:HostIP</muws-xs:Match>
> > 		<muws-xs:MatchAny>
> > 		<muws-xs:Match>scsi:BusID</muws-xs:Match>
> > 		<muws-xs:Match>scsi:ChannelID</muws-xs:Match>
> > 		<muws-xs:Match>scsi:ID</muws-xs:Match>
> > 		<muws-xs:Match>scsi:LUN</muws-xs:Match>
> > 	</muws-xs:CorrelatableProperties>
> > 
> > 	3) no events or operations are necessary
> > 
> > -- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
> > -- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vambenepe, William N [mailto:vbp@hp.com]
> > Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 6:21 PM
> > To: wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: [wsdm] Proposal on [Disc04]
> > 
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > As promised, here is a proposal for [Disc04].
> > 
> > > [Disc04]
> > > From one manageability endpoint to other manageability 
> endpoints of
> > > the same resource (to discover all the manageability capabilities 
> > > offered), including endpoints from the same and different 
> > > manageability Providers.
> > > We discussed that one 2 weeks ago but didn't talk about 
> any way to 
> > > address it yet.
> > 
> > This proposal too rests on using relationships. It is 
> simply to create
> > a special relationship type, called something like 
> "sameResource" or 
> > "alternateManageabilityRepresentation". A Ws-Resource representing 
> > resource foo will advertise this relationship between 
> itself and the 
> > other known WS-Resources that also represent foo.
> > 
> > Simple and clean, don't you think?
> > 
> > Therefore I propose we also hibernate this issue with the assumption
> > that relationships will provide the right mechanism (of 
> course, to be 
> > validated once we actually have relationships).
> > 
> > William
> > 
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from 
> the roster
> > of the OASIS TC), go to 
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsdm/members/leav
> e_workgroup.php.
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from 
> the roster of the OASIS TC), go to 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsdm/members/leav
e_workgrou
p.php.



To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the
OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsdm/members/leave_workgroup.ph
p.