Thanks Tom, My comment in line <HK>. ---- Hiro Kishimoto Tom Maguire wrote:
owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org wrote on 08/02/2005 06:49:20 AM:
Hi Tom,
Thank you very much for your Milestone proposal. I will make no objection about this proposal but have some reservations.
Even though CIM is the most promising and widely adopted resource model in the world, OGSA-WG is still discussing our strategic direction of resource modeling. Reasonable work process is something like:
(1) Determine the strategic direction including resource model selection (CIM?). (2) List up and prioritize requirements on models. (3) Ask external experts to fulfill each requirement.
Question (1) is moot given that we are talking specifically about the GGF-DMTF Work Register.
<HK> I don't think so. It is very unlikely but if OGSA-WG chooses i.e. GLUE schema as our resource model, we don't need to put our names on Work Register document. Actually, we are going to work with DMTF but our strategic decision should come before Work Register. </HK>
Question (2) is irrelevant to the additional milestone since both the OGSA-D milestone and the addtional milestone are 'common' mapping requirements which are orthogonal to specific resource modeling requirements (eg. changes/additions/deletions of properties, operations, associations or classes). That being said IMO we should be asking external experts (DMTF in this context) to provide us with these high level constructs.
<HK> I got your point. </HK>
Since we will make (3) in parallel with (1) and (2), I see two risks;
(a) We ask DMTF and they make it on time (Feb. 2006) but we are not ready to utilize them at that time or end up using only small part of their work, or (b) We ask DMTF and they ask us back which is the highest priority item since our request is broad range. But we cannot answer until we sort out (1) and (2).
On point (a) I suspect anyone using CIM uses only a small part of it so I think that one is ok.
<HK> Given you are asking a common mapping to wsdl, it makes sense. </HK>
On point (b) I would suggest that the OGSA-D milestone is more time critical; so I would prioritize that above this additional work. As I pointed out above this is 'common' mapping work so I do not believe it is tied at all to the resource modeling work.
<HK> Agreed. </HK>
So, I propose not to specify deadline request for this milestone from us. Instead Let DMTF say when they might be ready with this work item. Then OGSA and DMTF discuss priority together.
I think a milestone without a date will be ignored. Further I am fairly certain that the DMTF TC will request a date.
<HK> Yes, milestone should have date. I insist DMTF should pick or lead to pick date. It is ok you suggest a date though. </HK>
And specific question/comment follows;
The DMTF will define and publicize abstract wsdl:portType for classes inthe CIM model (February 2006)
Do you ask all of CIM classes (there are tons of them) or small number of subset?
We are asking for a common mapping to wsdl
Each 'extrinsic' operation on a CIM class will be modeled
What is 'extrinsic' operation?
Operations that are expressed in the CIM schema on CIM classes
as a wsdl:operation Properties of the CIM class which are rendered in XML schema (detailed in previous deliverable) will be
What is "previous deliverable"? Is it wsdl:operation (above line) or namespace and XML schema (previous paragraph)?
I was assuming that the OGSA-D XML schema would be logically place above/before this milestone/deliverable
available throughthe wsdl:types section It is envisioned that some set of qualifiers will be mapped to xml schema and wsdl constructs. The specifics of this mapping are viewed as explicitly part of the work to render the model. As such GGF has no specific requirements at this time but may have requirements as the workproduct develops. The intent of this deliverable is to make available a set of standard wsdl:portTypes representing the CIM modeled aspect of classes (extrinsics and properties only). It is envisioned that these portTypes will be mixed in with additional capabilities from Grid disciplines to support Basic Execution Services, Data Virtualization and other areas as they are developed.
p.s. Since WS-CIM call this week is canceled, we have time to think it over.
This is not a discussion for WS-CIM directly. It is a discussion with the DMTF TC and they meet today. Further, any work register requires DMTF board approval and the board meets on 8/11. After that our next board meeting is in September.
Tom
Thanks, ----- Hiro Kishimoto
Tom Maguire wrote:
Folks, On the OGSA-WG telecon 8/1 I took an AI to add a milestone/deliverable
to
the GGF-DMTF Work Register. Specifically, the milestone reflects the urgent desire of the OGSA-WG to have a normative WSDL for classes
expressed
in the CIM schema. This milestone builds on the current addition to
the
work register from OGSA-D; namely the namespace and xml schema for the properties of CIM classes. The addition to the work register being proposed is as follows:
The DMTF will define and publicize abstract wsdl:portType for
classes in
the CIM model (February 2006) Each 'extrinsic' operation on a CIM class will be modeled
as a
wsdl:operation Properties of the CIM class which are rendered in XML
schema
(detailed in previous deliverable) will be available
through
the wsdl:types section It is envisioned that some set of qualifiers will be mapped to xml schema and wsdl constructs. The specifics of this mapping are
viewed as
explicitly part of the work to render the model. As such GGF has no specific requirements at this time but may have requirements as the
work
product develops. The intent of this deliverable is to make available a set of
standard
wsdl:portTypes representing the CIM modeled aspect of classes (extrinsics and properties only). It is envisioned that these
portTypes
will be mixed in with additional capabilities from Grid disciplines
to
support Basic Execution Services, Data Virtualization and other
areas as
they are developed.
Note: Abstract wsdl:portType refers to wsdl:portType definitions
without
bindings.
OGSA-WG members please give me your feedback and edits ASAP.
Tom
Frey’s Law: “Every 5 years the number of architecture components double
and
the ability to comprehend them halves”
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. – Antoine de Saint-Exupery
T o m M a g u i r e
STSM, On Demand Architecture
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org wrote on 07/29/2005 07:40:26 PM:
Hi all,
Tom Roney, GGF forum-level liaison to DMTF, ask us to review updated GGF-DMTF Work Register document. OGSA-WG already has dialogue with DMTF folks and I think this document is consistent with our on going activity.
Thus I would like to put this item into next Monday call agenda.
Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto
----- Message from Tom Roney <troney@ncsa.uiuc.edu> on Tue, 26 Jul 2005 09:23:32 -0500 -----
To:
mark.linesch@hp.com, hiro.kishimoto@jp.fujitsu.com, tmaguire@us.ibm. com, fred-m@crl.hitachi.co.jp, malaika@us.ibm.com, norm@cs.man.ac. uk, dave.pearson@oracle.com, dejan.milojicic@hp.com, tkojo@mvi. biglobe.ne.jp, eboyd@internet2.edu, rich@a3.ph.man.ac.uk, M.J. Leese@dl.ac.uk, david.wallom@bristol.ac.uk, jputley@earthlink.net, lfm@psc.edu, Shoshani@lbl.gov, pkunszt@mail.cern.ch, Jon. Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk, travos@nortelnetworks.com, mulmo@pdc.kth.se, dane@fnal.gov, asm100@doc.ic.ac.uk, darrenp@cadence.com, ali@epcc. ed.ac.uk, dder@ecs.soton.ac.uk, carole@cs.man.ac.uk
cc:
Tom <troney@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Subject:
GGF-DMTF Work Register
All,
Attached is a draft of the GGF-DMTF Work Register, a document describing the collaboration between the two organizations. You are receiving a copy of the draft because your name appears in the document as having some role in the collaboration. Please review the document and let me hear back from you, either accepting the document in its entirety, or requesting additions, subtractions, or modifications to the document. The final draft will then be presented to the GGF Steering Group and the DMTF Board for their comments and approval.
Your careful consideration is appreciated. If you are aware of a GGF working group not listed but having a role to play in this collaborative effort, please do make this known.
Tom
Note: It occurs to me now that I have forgotten the Semantic Grid Research Group. Listed as co-chairs will be David De Roure and Carole Goble.
[attachment "GGF-DMTFWorkRegisterDraft.doc" deleted by Tom Maguire/Hawthorne/IBM]