[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsdm] What comes first
Well put, Mark. I agree that the "of" aspect is clearly the first step. As some approaches show today, using a random method that is read-only to access the Web service's availability and performance metrics are not the optimal mechanism. So the first step would be to standardize on some manageability OF these WS.
After that, these results can be readily applied to the management "by" Web services, but its a much more gray subject and hard to quantify what that might look like and how widely applicable it would be (depending on how much ocean is left :).
France Telecom R&D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Potts [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 1:14 PM
> To: Nikula, Richard; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [wsdm] What comes first
> The Management "of" Web services by definition and requirements
> specified within the W3C is consistent with WSA (web services
> architecture) and therefore will "use" Web services. I agree that the
> first step is a management information model specific to Web service
> resources (endpoints). Using the model defined for the management "of"
> Web services we can then codify the model (WSDL, XSD etc) such that it
> meets the defined requirements and is consistent with other
> surrounding the "use" of Web services for management (GGF, DMTF etc).
> This combined work can then be used and leveraged when
> looking at other
> types of resources below and above the services layer that
> make sense to
> be managed "using" Web services.
> There are good reasons to adopt this approach, mostly driven by
> producing something meaningful and useful to the Web service and
> Management community in a timely fashion;
> 1) To attack Management "using" Web services is a vast and abstract
> task. There will many levels of management specific to the resources
> being managed (element level through services and applications to
> logical compositions and processes) and to abstract this will take an
> incredible amount of time and effort (even leveraging past
> work in this
> area). We should work towards this but not try to boil the ocean
> initially - divide and conquer.
> 2) Managing of Web services using Web services is a natural starting
> point, we will discover a lot about what can be done within
> the confines
> of a specific resources, and the scope of the effort itself is
> manageable and achievable given our time frames.
> Mark Potts
> Talking Blocks
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nikula, Richard [mailto:Richard_Nikula@bmc.com]
> > Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 11:25 AM
> > To: email@example.com
> > Subject: [wsdm] What comes first
> > I think that a more clear definition of the deliverables is
> > required to answer which to do first. Our goal in creating
> > the new charter was to leverage/augment work in DMTF, W3C and
> > GGF in particular. We need to define what that means, then
> > based on the readiness of the groups, go from there. I think
> > a lot of our work is figuring how and if we can work within
> > the framework we propose.
> > Based on discussions in the old TC, while somewhat
> > simplistically stated, I would have thought the first thing
> > we would do is to take the work done by the W3C in terms of
> > resources and methods; and working "with" the application
> > modeling team from DMTF, produce a web services model
> > (management of). Once we had the web services model, we
> > could then proceed based on the work the GGF was doing to
> > produce a WSDL based implementation of the service
> > (management using).
> > Richard