[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsdm] WS-RF Resources vs. WSDM Resources
|
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 Office of the CTO 802 765-4337
-----Original Message-----
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:Kirk.Wilson@ca.com]
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 Office of the CTO 802 765-4337
-----Original Message-----
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:Kirk.Wilson@ca.com] 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 Architect,
Development
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]