[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Modelling the modelling process (Re: Methods)
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
>