RE: [wsdm] WS-RF Resources vs. WSDM Resources

["Murray, Bryan P." <bryan.murray@hp.com>]

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]
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 4:42 AM
To: wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsdm] WS-RF Resources vs. WSDM Resources

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
Computer Associates

Architect, Development
Office of the CTO
Tele: + 1 802 765-4337
Fax:   + 1 802 765-4339
<mailto:kirk.wilson@ca.com>