[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Closing on NIM requirements
Couple of poins. Unfortunately it will be difficult to get back with detailed
before the end of the week as I am travelling for a ballot resolution meeting.
These go very late. In general I agree with the high
level requirements and I think it is a good starting point. I can get back to
by next Saturday.
I also requested T1M1 folks to join the list and they may need to archive the
draft you submitted to provide further input.
As for the comment from Dave below, I agree with the general theme of being
implementation idependent. A language like UML does include operations and
attributes. This is definitely being used in ITU and other groups
as a way to model without choosing a specific implementation.
We have considered this to be implementation dependent.
I do not follow why in the mail below it is stated that methods are not part of
an information model. Instead of calling it as method, would operations be
a better term? Also I do not view operations as a grouping of attributes at all.
The operations does have pre and post conditions that must be expressed.
They have in and out parameters and they may or may not be attributes.
These characteristics are not specific to CORBA IDL or a protocol model.
I would like to also propose that we should look at Rec M.3020 which does
information model without being specific to a protocol.
"Durham, David" <firstname.lastname@example.org> on 04/15/2000 06:49:08 PM
To: "'Weiss, Walter'" <WWeiss@lucentctc.com>, "'email@example.com'"
cc: (bcc: Lakshmi Raman/Telcordia)
Subject: RE: Closing on NIM requirements
I am still trying to grapple with the idea of methods within an information
model. What does it mean to model methods in a declarative model which I
generally view as classes, attributes, and associations? Methods seem to
break repository models (which do not support them directly) as well as
protocol models that strictly set/get or add/remove named data (eg. SNMP).
I view methods as being useful as mechanism for grouping attributes and
expressing the transactional semantics of attributes. Other than that, if
they are meant to imply CORBA/DCOM IDL-like notions, then I don't think they
belong in an "information model" because they are forcing it to become
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Weiss, Walter [mailto:WWeiss@lucentctc.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2000 2:52 AM
> To: 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
> Subject: Closing on NIM requirements
> The next major issue is going to be settling on a modeling language.
> Numerous people have offered me there preferences. However,
> before this
> discussion can begin, we need to reach some consensus on the
> document. I would like to see some comments submitted to the
> list within the
> next week. If no comments are forthcoming, we will assume
> that everybody is
> happy with the current requirements and we will move on this
> next issue.