RE: [dcml-frame] Implementation Subgroup

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

Tim,

I have no problem with some participants working on a
prototype implementation, as long as the focus and
principal product of the group is the interface
standard. I suggest caution in moving too quickly
to a prototype since that can restrict thinking and
consideration of alternative approaches.

Fred

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tim Howes [mailto:howes@opsware.com] 
>Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 4:57 PM
>To: Cummins, Fred A
>Cc: dcml-frame@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [dcml-frame] Implementation Subgroup
>
>Fred, you are completely missing the point. The point is not 
>to produce THE implementation of DCML. The point is to produce 
>an EXAMPLE implementation of DCML that will help people 
>understand the standard, show that the standard is useful, and 
>encourage vendors to produce products based on the standard.
>
>Second, there is no conflict between defining interfaces and 
>creating an implementation. In fact, you must do the first to 
>do the second.
>The advantage of doing them in a parallel, iterative fashion 
>is that you have a much greater chance of actually getting 
>your interfaces right if you know they work via implementation.
>
>Third, there is a long and highly successful history of 
>combining standards development with implementation. Namely, 
>the Internet. That's the model I'd like us to follow. If you 
>can think of a more successful one, I'm all ears.
>
>Fourth, any implementation we produce will be a toy. The point 
>is not to make something that will compete with anybody's 
>actual product. But it will serve its purpose, which is 
>education, awareness, and validation of our ideas. If it 
>helps, you can think of the example implementation as the 
>product of one (or a couple, if other people want to help) of 
>the WG members, rather than the product of the group itself, 
>which I agree should be the interface definition.
>
>Does that make sense?            -- Tim
>
>Cummins, Fred A wrote:
>> Tim,
>> 
>> I would rather see the product vendors do implementations.
>> First of all, our implementation would likely be a prototype that 
>> might not reflect all of the requirements. Secondly, 
>different vendors 
>> will have different implementations, and the interface specification 
>> should enable that differentiation.
>> I also hope that if we do it right, most vendors will be 
>able to adapt 
>> their products to comply rather than developing completely new 
>> products.  Finally, we should be able to specify reasonably good 
>> interfaces in much less time than it would take to implement a 
>> prototype with well-designed interfaces.
>> 
>> Fred
>> 
>> 
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Tim Howes [mailto:howes@opsware.com]
>>>Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 4:01 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>