|
Hi John, Inline…
-----Original Message-----
I disagree. First, where's the paradigm shift? [DaveD] XML has well-defined standards and tools for data transformation. It is the common mode of operation to transform XML data from one form to another. It makes component integration simpler. It also helps that it provides structured data that is human readable as well, first popularized by the document markup language SGML. What is the equivalent of XSLT for MIBs, or for MOFs, or MIFs, etc? Second, what you're describing in translation is exactly the same work that is necessary to build a common model in the first place. [DaveD] How so? You mean excessive, never-ending churn? Well good, then we agree. I don't see how you can say that building a common model is impossible, but having vendors agree on translations is. [DaveD] I didn’t say it was impossible, just that a common model tends to be too late to make a difference, and defacto standards will reign. XML simply allows the process to be more flexible, where a snapshot of a developing model can be implemented, and minor conversions from one model to another aren’t a big deal. Third, I don't see how different working groups in isolation can do either of these. [DaveD] Either of these? Finally, you say: "IMHO, this group should focus on determining which XML schema definition language IETF wgs will use, define the basic reusable data types useful across IETF wgs, define the operational model for XML transactions, and select a common transport. Just get the foundation in place & let the models work themselves out over time in individual wgs and let XSLT be the glue between the early products and late standards." I honestly don't see how this works, helps, or benefits anyone. Choosing a syntax, and defining the data types used in that syntax, doesn't enable interoperability. Selecting a common transport is immaterial, it just moves bits around. And the hope that "the models will work themselves out over time in individual wgs" is simply naïve - witness the ongoing painful arguments in CCAMP, for example, between "IETF" and "ITU" "models". [DaveD] Yes, there are more “common models” than one can shake a stick at… That’s the point, there is nothing common about them, not the model itself, its transport, its syntax, etc. There are already plenty of models… So let’s make the simple foundational stuff common, and allow it to be as simple as possible to transform data from one model to another. The common model is a wonderful concept we can “discuss” until the sun goes super nova on us.
regards,
-----Original
Message-----
I think we need to keep in mind that XML presents a bit of a paradigm shift from what we have known. Yes, common models are important, but they are almost always too late for companies and, thus, incompatible with the vast majority of products when completed. It just takes too long to get them standardized via the process of compromise, and even longer to get them right. What XML offers is a large set of tools that allow translation between different vendor's models. These models can be developed independently around a specific technology, and, if deployed using XML, can still be made to interoperate where there is commonality. So your schema can define "<IntFace> UP </IntFace>" and mine can define "<Interface> ON </Interface>" and XSLT can be used to translate between these. Or, better yet, when a standard is completed, vendors can easily provide translations from it to their existing models. IMHO, this group should focus on determining which XML schema definition language IETF wgs will use, define the basic reusable data types useful across IETF wgs, define the operational model for XML transactions, and select a common transport. Just get the foundation in place & let the models work themselves out over time in individual wgs and let XSLT be the glue between the early products and late standards. -Dave >
-----Original Message----- --
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/xmlconf/> |