> > > Therefore, I suggest that in the aftermath of the NIM
> BOF, the topic
> > > which this mailing-list has to consider is what to do about an
> > > Information Model.
> > If the objective is to create an information model based on
> the superset of
> > SMI (SPPI) or SMIng, I would agree with you.
> Your "if statement" makes no sense to me, since the oft-repeated
> definition of "information model" says that it is independent of the
> data models like SMI/SPPI/SMIng.
SMI/SPPI/SMIng is not a data model or an information model. It is a language for specifying structures. To the extent that it supports multiple distinct protocols, it is also an information modeling language.
> > However, it is not clear yet
> > whether people want to do a full OO information model based
> on some new or
> > existing language (for example UML/MOF), or whether they
> want to develop an
> > information model based on some SMI derivative.
> Again, how can something be an "information model" if it's
> based on some
> SMI derivative" ??
It is a question of the capabilities of the language that determines the scope of the information model. If the language supports the specification of methods, for example, mapping of a model based on that language could be applicable to a technologies like CORBA, or even C++ APIs. However, only a subset of the model may be applicable to certain technologies such as SNMP which don't directly support methods. In contrast, if the language is considerably more restrictive, it could still be applicable, but would potentially be less capable of fully utilizing all the capabilities.
> > While the BOF discussions
> > seemed to favor the latter, the list discussions seem far
> more evenly split.
> As I recall, the favouring of the latter was more to do with
> of the former being achievable, rather than an attraction for
> the latter.
If people are skeptical about the approach or the results, the conclusion is the same. It will not be used (n+1). Some of the best ideas were never deployed because of a lack of momentum. That did not make the idea bad. It only demonstrated weak marketing of the idea or better counter-marketing. The corollary for bad ideas with good marketing is also true :)