Hi Donal,

...

So my point is: 1) ANY resource model we use MUST have a normative xml expression 2) ANY resource model we use MUST have a normative wsdl expression

For specific, specific disciplines we undoubtedly will use

Tom Maguire wrote: portions of

...

CIM. We (OGSA) will undoubtedly use portions of other resource models (perhaps IETF for networking). All of the models we use MUST meet the normative low bar above 1 & 2.

I wasn't aware that resource models were inherently services. They're just a way of describing the terms used in some data relating to the description of a resource, surely? Or do you distinguish between purely passive descriptive models and active manipulable models of a resource?

I don't know if you were in the teleconference (we gave some more background on this there), so here is a rather short clarification. A resource model has semantics and a rendering. The semantics are just, say, a UML model with some textual descriptions. CIM itself only has semantics. If you want to access or exchange information using the model semantics you need a rendering -- say, a mapping of the semantics over XML, plus a binding over a given network protocol, etc. I presume that by "services" and "active manipulable model" you mean the rendering. So, I agree that, the model [semantics] are not services. What we are proposing to the DMTF is to create a rendering, but not down to the bindings. It's just an XML representation of CIM, plus *part* of the WSDL definition. The most concise way that I can explain this is: "everything that can be made common among multiple OGSA basic profiles". Hope that helps, Fred Maciel Hitachi America R&D