[glue-wg] Comparison with CIM

[Laurence Field]

Hi Paul,

CIM has been on the radar ever since the start and has never really left 
it. Within the OGF there are number of DMTF representatives and one, 
Ellen Stokes from IBM, is a member of this working group. Although not 
in the working group charter, one of the aims is to render Glue using 
CIM in order to make an OGF vendor extension to the CIM schema. Sergio 
may correct me if I am wrong but he is intending to write some CIM 
information providers for Open Pegasus to publish information related to 
grid services. Whenever we have had questions, such as what is the 
syntax for expressing the OS, we investigate the solution first in CIM. 
However, for all the details it sometimes misses quite a few helpful 
things. :)

Both myself and Sergio have attended DMTF meetings to discuss our mutual 
needs and to gain some experience on the respective environments. CIM is 
excels at describing detailed information about hardware resources and 
setup of a data center but it is weak when it comes to software life 
cycle management and abstract services. Paul Strong from e-bay is 
pushing the software life cycle management part in the reference model 
working group and we are essentially looking at the abstract grid 
services. If the Glue schema becomes on OGF recommendation and we make a 
vendor extension to the CIM schema, the DMTF representatives will most 
probably take this to the DMTF to find out what the next steps should be 
and if this is relevant to a wider community.

The Storage Networking Industry Association (SNIA) is a member of the 
DMTF and probably has something to do with StorageDevice schema. When 
starting this group we tried to find someone from SNIA to participle. 
After some initial interest, we did not manage to find anyone who could 
spare the time. If you think it might be helpful to get someone 
involved, I can fish out the details from my email archive and chase 
this up.

 From looking at the UML, I am a little unsure of how this helps in the 
discussion. Please could you explain in more detail why this is relevant?

btw,

I notice that as MediaAccesssDrives:

1) They have CDROMDrive and DVDDrive with out sub classing from 
OpticalDrive.
2) They are missing both SolidStateDrive and Holographic Drive
3) They do get extra points for a Worm Drive but lose some for the 
missing Warp Drive

:)

Laurence


Paul Millar wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I don't know if anyone has been looking at this, but there's an emerging 
> standard (through DMTF) in modelling "things" (computer-hardware 
> and -software, network equipment, etc): CIM.  There seems to be some 
> cross-over here through OGF, so forgive me if this is already "well known".
>
> Anyway, for those who haven't heard of them, their schema makes for 
> interesting reading.  The current version (2.18) is available from:
> 	http://www.dmtf.org/standards/cim/cim_schema_v218
>
> "Device" (from which a StorageDevice may be published)
>
> http://www.dmtf.org/standards/cim/cim_schema_v28/CIM_Device28-Final.pdf
>
> How to publish ACLs:
>
> http://www.dmtf.org/standards/cim/cim_schema_v218/CIM_Policy.pdf
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Paul.
> _______________________________________________
> glue-wg mailing list
> glue-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
>