[ogsa-wg] GGF-DMTF Work Register

[Fred Maciel]

Hi Donal, 

> Tom Maguire wrote:
> > 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 
> 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