Andrea Westerinen wrote:
<arw> Actually, I would not associate a specific processor (which is what CIM_Processor describes) with a Job's requirements. That is why I referenced SoftwareResource as a way to describe what is needed - that could then be tied to an actual system and its components (if desired) using the LogicalIdentity association. The SoftwareResource describes what is needed by the software in terms of files, memory, ... and the LogicalIdentity can tie that to actual "stuff" when the software is executing.
FWIW, I wouldn't either. :^) But I know people who would; apparently the details of the processor it the job is running on is important to them.
<arw> Sounds like a Job Profile is key for the DMTF to create very soon. I will take that message back to the System/Devices WG and help with the task.
Cool.
<arw> I think that CIM can do (and has done) both - but you are right to want to separate the description of needs from the actual implementation. And, it is right to question what seems too hard to do - since that is valid feedback and will lead to a better model.
The main trickiness is that it's usually good policy to underspecify jobs to permit them to be understood (and executed) by more systems. Mind you, in the experience of the centre I work at, users tend to overspecify some aspects (which machine the job runs on doesn't usually matter that much in reality) and underspecify others (they virtually never give sensible estimates of how much computation time a job will need, making scheduling a real PITA). Not that I think the solutions to these problems lie in datamodels at all; they're just a necessary part of developing the real solutions.
<arw> I agree that JSDL and JSIM address different stages, but CIM is meant to address both stages. That said, I acknowledge that CIM has more work to do in the "describing what a job needs" category.
You've a long haul ahead. :^) Inexact description of jobs is key... Donal.