Christopher Smith wrote:
I think you've definitely touched on the problem with using the CIM model, but I have to imagine that the people discussing these issues in the DMTF working groups have faced exactly the same issue as we're seeing, and the result is that they went for this simple approach. So we can go through the same exercise they did, perhaps with a chance that we arrive at a different approach which allows us more flexibility, but I'm guessing we'd arrive at the same place. How do we keep up (in standardization) with the fast changing world around us? I for one want to make sure that when someone asks me for a particular OS or processor type, that I can understand the "token" that I'm given.
I'm not at all convinced that they've got sufficiently similar terms of reference to us for them to have hit the same problem. If your problem domain is "describe what is out there in a format compatible with big iron databases" then CIM does that nicely. OTOH, it would be nice if there was a group in the DMTF that was prepared to work on this, not just because that would take the work out of our hands :-) but also because it is introducing a level of semantic richness that will stand the CIM model in good stead. Though I'm not sure if most CPU and OS designers are actually good enough to satisfy the requirements of a true partial order over their components. I know both groups too well to trust them to get that right; CPU designers are too keen on "cute" hacks and OS designers tend to not believe just how important keeping things *really* compatible is... If we (GGF) do the subsumption ordering ourselves, we need to check whether our process can take such regular publication of recommendation track documents. It seemed rather slow the last time we tried. :-\ (Also, perhaps we'd want to do this outside of the JSDL activity; it's only tangentially related at best.) Donal.