[gin-info] Minimum common attributes draft

[Yuji Saeki]

 Yes, I think so too. There are various ways to represent association
among these information classes of service, software and so on,
so I've been wondering how to represent it.
(There are complicated  association/aggregations relating other classes
to System class in the CIM based representation.)
It is a simple way to add the cluster (unique) name attribute to other
classes
though multiple clusters may share storage.

Yuji


JP Navarro wrote:

> Yuji,
>
> I believe there should be a binding attribute (probably cluster
> name) in 2.1/service, 2.2/software, 2.3/queue, 2.5/storage, and
> 2.6/host to relate these attributes to each other and to 2.4/cluster.
>
> I believe these relationships are in the CIM representation, and
> are also important for the minimum attributes.
>
> Thanks,
>
> JP Navarro
>
> On May 11, 2006, at 6:07 AM, Yuji Saeki wrote:
>
> > Dear folks,
> >
> >  I send it again. (I forwarded Satoshi's message attaching it with
> > other files to gin-info twice on Monday but I've never received them.)
> >  I'm familiar with CIM rather than GLUE schema so it is described
> > mainly in the CIM representation.
> > Yuji
> > <MinComAttrib00_CIM.doc>