[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Perspective: XML's ticking time bomb
Eliot, Thanks for jumping in here (I am catching up on mail after a day of
meetings, sorry for the delay). I really didn't want to get into a "my
model is better than your model" debate since that is not the issue. I was
trying to point out that "XML is a syntax in search of a semantic", that
common semantics are needed, and that there is some success in the industry
already in defining cross-domain semantics and models.
Andrea
-----Original Message-----
From: Eliot Lear [mailto:lear@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 5:26 PM
To: John Strassner
Cc: Andrea Westerinen; Faye Ly; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Xmlconf (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Perspective: XML's ticking time bomb
John/Andrea,
Without entering into the MOF debate, I think you would agree with
Andrea's major point that it would be nice if we had a common language.
within the XML that could be spoken, and not just widgets, and that if
you're going to use widgets, then being able to express CIM (or pick
your favorate common information model (lowercase)) in those widgets is
a good thing.
This group (XMLCONF) has not debated model specifics -- at all.
Eliot
John Strassner wrote:
> I don't see how CIM accomplishes this. There are no managed objects for
> representing fundamental constructs, such as a physical port of a device
or
> the logical interface (or sub-interface) of a device. You claim that a
> protocol endpoint is an interface - but it isn't. It is a general purpose
> communications interface. From the Network 2.6 MOF:
>
> // ==================================================================
> // ProtocolEndpoint
> // ==================================================================
> [Description (
> "A communication point from which data may be sent or "
> "received. ProtocolEndpoints link router interfaces and "
> "switch ports to LogicalNetworks.") ]
>
> Furthermore, there is no public CIM class to represent a device interface.
> So please tell me how CIM enables the developer to get from an XML
> representation of (for example) a change in the configuration file of a
> device to a model representing that change.
>
> Finally, DTDs are useless. And WSDL is independent of XML, so I'm not sure
> why you even brought that up.
>
> regards,
> John
>
> John Strassner
> Chief Strategy Officer
> Intelliden Corporation
> 90 South Cascade Avenue
> Colorado Springs, CO 80903 USA
> phone: +1.719.785.0648
> FAX: +1.719.785.0644
> email: john.strassner@intelliden.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrea Westerinen [mailto:andreaw@cisco.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 2:30 PM
> To: Faye Ly; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Xmlconf (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Perspective: XML's ticking time bomb
>
>
> This is exactly what the DMTF is trying to do with CIM - create an OO
model
> for managing end to end (provisioning, monitoring, faults, ...). The
model
> is tied together across management domains, vendors, and products. Whether
> the model is encoded in XML or something else is secondary. The fact that
> concepts like systems, services, interfaces (protocol endpoints), etc. can
> be modeled and generically understood (have inherited properties and
> behaviors) is much more valuable than the encoding. After all, "XML is
just
> a syntax in search of a semantic."
>
> However, if you are looking for XML, then there is an XML DTD for CIM -
and
> also work-in-progress regarding a CIM XML-Schema, and discussions of
> CIM-WSDL.
>
> Andrea
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xmlconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-xmlconf@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Faye Ly
> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 8:51 AM
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Xmlconf (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Perspective: XML's ticking time bomb
>
>
> Bert,
>
> That is a very good article. I admit I went back to this mailing list's
> archive and got lost in the multiple mail threads. So what is the
> conclusion on moving forward for this group?
>
> I think I tend to agree that XML is a superior language over MIB but the
> fact that we are missing 'management object' on many things such as -
>
> Service provisioning/ subscriber provisioning
> fault isolation that is transparent to the underlying transport method ...
>
> Sort of similar to the effort of snmpconf (for provisioning only) that is
> currently missing. I actually think it is in-relevant if we do it using
XML
> or the good old MIB. The important thing is to come up with consensus on
> the management model. If XML can help with the majority of the people to
> better understand and thus expedite the process, then let's go with XML.
I
> think this is actually the time to organize the effort around coming up
with
> standards for:
>
> 1. provisioning
> 2. fault isolation
> 3. performance monitoring
> 4. othrs such as file management, upgrade and etc ...
>
> And let each group come up with the management model first, XML and/or MIB
> later?
>
> What do you think?
>
> -faye
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 3:51 AM
> To: Xmlconf (E-mail)
> Subject: Perspective: XML's ticking time bomb
>
> Here is another one to take into account:
>
> Perspective: XML's ticking time bomb
>
> http://news.com.com/2010-1071-961117.html
>
> It is a few months old... not sure how I all of a sudden
> ran into it. Oh well...
>
> Bert
>
> --
--
to unsubscribe send a message to xmlconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/xmlconf/>