[gin-info] Minimum common attributes draft

[JP Navarro]

It would be OK for multiple clusters to report what may be the same
storage. That's one option.

Another option is to introduce a storage (unique) name, and add a
storage name to cluster name relation.

JP

On Jun 14, 2006, at 11:21 PM, Yuji Saeki wrote:

>
>  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>
>