RE: [dcml-frame] Meeting info

["Cummins, Fred A" <fred.cummins@eds.com>]

Andre,

See my comments, below.

Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andre Kramer [mailto:andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 12:18 PM
> To: Cummins, Fred A; Tim Howes; dcml-frame@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [dcml-frame] Meeting info
> 
> 
> Hi Fred,
> 
> Just to note that your scheme fits into my proposal at some level, as
> XML is used to exchange models defined using some OO modeling 
> language.
> But the proposal is open to diverse approaches, based on the existing
> "Semantic Web" modeling as a unifying abstraction tool.

While I appreciate the potential power of ontologies, particularly
for classifaction and search of information on the web, I see a need
for a practical and proven approach to the development of DCML 
standards and the systems that will support them.
> 
> I agree we could define such a single model, or leverage one 
> of several
> existing standards, but a framework based on ontologies would 
> be able to
> handle more than one such language - opening the door to others.

There is no need to handle more than one language--UML is widely
accepted, tools are readily available, and there is a large community
of people who understand it.
> 
> Which leads me to the question that I think the first action requested
> answered. Exactly how is UML to be used here? XMI (and MOF) 
> seems to be
> overly sophisticated (express general "programming" OO 
> models) and if we
> (or others sub-set UML encoded as XML) don't we just invent our own
> language?

XMI and MOF come with UML for the sharing/exchange of models.  Modeling
tools understand it.  That does not mean that XMI should be used for
DCML.  XMI has a specific purpose--exchange of models.

Of course it could be argued that DCML will model the data center.  But
any object-oriented application "models" the subject domain.  There
is overhead in a robust modeling environment that is not appropriate
for production applications and data exchange. 
> 
> This, I claim, would not be too different to the "Class, SubClassOf,
> instanceOf, Property" language I mentioned in the proposal. 
> But I would not force all user of DCML to use this exact modeling 
> approach (not very rich).

The common data model is for the purpose of achieving consistency in
the various standards produced under the DCML umbrella.  The standard
that users of DCML will use is the XML specification that defines the
form for exchange of data for particular purposes.  If these specifications
are not well documented, then there may be a need to refer to the model.  
Furthermore, most users of DCML will never see the DCML, but will use 
it implicitly to integrate the services that run their data centers.
> 
> On the other hand, if we have a concrete single proposal for a data
> center modeling language based on reuse of an existing management
> standard then DCML as framework may also be in danger of too much
> overlap with the existing std (if it is to be the only one supported).

This sounds like you are suggesting a different approach so that an
overlap with other standards is obscured.  I think it is important to
make overlaps evident and resolve them.  If you are suggesting that there
might be a problem defining the bounds of DCML, I think the problem will
be much greater if you are trying to start with an ontology.
> 
> Regards,
> Andre
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cummins, Fred A [mailto:fred.cummins@eds.com] 
> Sent: 07 March 2005 16:39
> To: Andre Kramer; Tim Howes; dcml-frame@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [dcml-frame] Meeting info
> 
> I'm not sure what is expected in response to the first item
> in Tim's action list.  I thought my comments in an earlier
> message, attached for reference, were pretty clear.
> 
> I disagree with Andre's manifesto.  While it may be interesting
> and avant guard to develop a data center ontology, this is not
> current practice in developing systems or data standards.  Such
> an effort can take on a life of its own and still fail to 
> provide the necessary foundation for consistent standards.
> 
> What is needed is a consistent data model.  Such a model will
> be more flexible and consistent with current implementation 
> technology if done with classes (i.e., OO model).
> 
> XML is not a data modeling language--it's a language for 
> specification and expression of records or messages.  There
> is no way you can develop and manage a consistent data center
> data model in XML.
> 
> As a practical matter, develop of a comprehensive data model
> will only delay development of standards since there is no
> way to get it right or complete the first time.  It's fine
> to start a data model with the more obvious things, but after
> that let specific standards drive its refinement.
> 
> It seems to me that CIM and WSDM have proven an approach.
> They both appear to have used UML to develop their shared data
> models and XML to specify the data to be exchanged.  Use of
> UML would then also make it easier for DCML to be consistent
> with these existing standards.
> 
> Fred
> 
> Fred
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andre Kramer [mailto:andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com]
> > Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 10:25 AM
> > To: Tim Howes; dcml-frame@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [dcml-frame] Meeting info
> > 
> > 
> > Please see attached for second action.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Andre
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tim Howes [mailto:howes@opsware.com] 
> > Sent: 01 March 2005 17:44
> > To: dcml-frame@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: Re: [dcml-frame] Meeting info
> > 
> > Attendees: Tim Howes, Andre Kramer, Barak Perlman,
> >             Josh Sirota
> > 
> > Actions from today's call:
> > 
> > - Fred (in absentia) with assistance from Barak to
> >    produce concrete UML proposal for DCML.
> > 
> > - Andre to send to list idea for DCML's relationship
> >    to other standards (e.g., CIM, etc.).
> > 
> > - Tim to investigate face-to-face WG meeting at
> >    end of April OASIS meeting or earlier.
> > 
> > - Ajay (in absentia) to extend ITIL use cases to
> >    next level of detail, making clear where DCML
> >    comes in.
> > 
> > Tim Howes wrote:
> > > Hi all. We will be having our bi-weekly framework
> > > working group call tomorrow. Here's the info:
> > > 
> > > Time: 9:00am - 10:00am PST
> > > Dial-in: +1 888 772-1825
> > > Passcode: 4087447509
> > > 
> > > Agenda:
> > > 
> > > - Introduction and roll call
> > > - Agenda review
> > > - Partner recruitment update
> > > - Alternate proposal review
> > > - ITIL use case review
> > > - Any other business
> > > 
> > > See you all tomorrow.              -- Tim
> > 
>