Re: Scope of NIM

["W. Fred Seigneur" <fred@pulver.com>]

I certainly agree with Avri. In seeing all these e-mails fly by, I've
wondered why SMI wasn't named SMD if it was for data rather than
information modeling.  The idea has always been to develop an ABSTRACT
information model which vendors can map to their specific
implementations.

Fred Seigneur

Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> "Weiss, Walter" wrote:
> >
> > > > > 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.
> 
> I am glad you brought this up.
> 
> I have for a while been confused about the arguments that the
> SMI/SPPI/SMIng constituted a data model.  While it is true that
> these can be used to derive a data model, I too believe that they
> express the structure of the information model and do not determine
> the data model in the same way that a LDAP expression would.  Both
> in agents and in management systems I have worked on, I have never
> had the structure of the MIB or PIB determine the way in which the
> data was handled internally.
> 
> a.