RE: Modelling the modelling process (Re: Methods)

["Andrea Westerinen" <andreawest@mindspring.com>]

I agreee with your modeling requirements (fudge small, magic standard and
"can't be done" small).  I guess that I don't understand the statement
"noting that you lose fractional megabits(?) in mapping to CIM is a property
of the mapping mechanism".  If you mean that the lots of stuff can't be
mapped to the CIM Network Model today - I agree.  But, IMHO, this is more a
function of the model still being in its very early stages than the mapping
issues.

Can you be more specific?  Then, I can understand your concerns.
Andrea

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:Harald@Alvestrand.no]
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 6:14 AM
> To: Andrea Westerinen; Juergen Schoenwaelder
> Cc: nim@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Modelling the modelling process (Re: Methods)
>
>
> At 01:55 15.05.2000 -0700, Andrea Westerinen wrote:
> >That is a very valid question - "What does the DMTF's MappingStrings
> >qualifier mean?" This qualifier indicates where data could be
> mapped to/from
> >the CIM property.  It does not specify the algorithm for the
> mapping - only
> >that logically similar data is defined.
>
> hmmm.
> it seems to me that we've got a model of the modelling process in
> our minds,
> which looks something like this:
>
>    +---------------------+
>    | System model        |-------+
>    | (protocol independent)      |
>    +---------------------+       |
>                                  +--->
>    +---------------------+                              Protocol
> description
>    | Mapping mechanisms  |----------->  MAGIC  ------>  (eg MIB,
> repository or
>    | (model independent) |                     --+      "other"
> for managing
>    +---------------------+       +--->           |      system
>                                  |               |
>    +---------------------+       |               +---> Description of what
>    | Fudges              |-------+                     can't be
> represented
>    +---------------------+                             in this protocol
>
> and that the requirements for the modelling include:
>
> - keeping the amount of fudge small
> - keeping the "magic" standard
> - making the "can't be represented" heap small
>
> noting that you lose fractional megabits(?) in mapping to CIM is
> a property
> of the mapping mechanism. What to do about it is probably a
> "fudge", since
> it depends on both the system and the protocol.
>
> but probably we have to live with a reasonable amount of fudge for a good
> long while still.
>
> My guess at the metasystem we seem to be working on....
>
>                   Harald
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no
>