WIMS> CIM> CIM Core discussion about MappingString format

WIMS> CIM> CIM Core discussion about MappingString format

WIMS> CIM> CIM Core discussion about MappingString format

McDonald, Ira imcdonald at sharplabs.com
Mon Mar 27 15:36:29 EST 2006


Hi Rick,
 
Agreed - I was tired when I read your note and confused about the context.
 
Cheers,
- Ira
 

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard_Landau at Dell.com [mailto:Richard_Landau at Dell.com]
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 2:41 PM
To: McDonald, Ira; wims at pwg.org
Cc: Winston_Bumpus at Dell.com
Subject: RE: WIMS> CIM> CIM Core discussion about MappingString format


Huh?  I'm puzzled.  
 
- The "Section 4" example in your email was entirely correct, and they will
agree as soon as we send them a couple words of context.
 
- MIB references in MappingStrings are explicitly different.  The examples
in the CIM Infrastructure Spec and dozens of MOFs use exactly the syntax you
want, also, that is
    MIB.IETF|Printer-MIB.prtCurrentLocalization
 
- MIFs also have a special format.  Fortunately we don't have to deal with
any of those.  (Harry rescued printers from MIFness many years ago, thank
you Harry.)  
 
After reading the actual so-called rules on this topic, in the CIM
Infrastructure Spec (DSP0004), sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6, I was very
confused.  However, after looking at many dozens of citations in the
existing MOFs, I find that there is much consistency.  And the formats you
proposed match nicely.  
 
Let's declare victory and move on.  
 
rick

   _____  

From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald at sharplabs.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 16:15
To: Landau, Richard; wims at pwg.org
Cc: Bumpus, Winston
Subject: RE: WIMS> CIM> CIM Core discussion about MappingString format


Hi Rick
 
They're all wet - they don't know their own IETF MIB reference syntax!
 
Quoting verbatim from CIMv2.11 'CIM_BGPProtocolEndpoint.mof':
 
  MappingStrings { "MIB.IETF|BGP4-MIB.bgpConnectRetryInterval" }]
 
Note, none of this pseudo-pipe syntax - THOUSANDS of examples
in the above syntax in CIMv2.11.  These guys should read their
own stuff.
 
Cheers,
- Ira
 

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wims at pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims at pwg.org]On Behalf Of
Richard_Landau at Dell.com
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:57 PM
To: wims at pwg.org
Cc: Winston_Bumpus at Dell.com
Subject: WIMS> CIM> CIM Core discussion about MappingString format



Went well.  Not perfectly, which is my fault but easily fixed.  Discussion
points: 

- MIB.PWG okay.  

- Hyphen instead of dot okay.  The only reasonable alternative is %2E or
some such, which is much more hostile to humans.  

- "Section 4" was questioned.  I, unfortunately, could not get the doc
(PWG5101.1) open in time to look at the section, and I didn't remember it.
The group's statement was If there is a table or data structure containing a
property, one should use pipe syntax, e.g., 

    doc.authority | structurename | propertyname.  
See examples in the new association CIM_SCSIInitiatorTargetLogicalUnitPath,
which is, horrors, a three-way association, but includes several examples of
this syntax, e.g., 

    MP_API.SNIA|MP_PATH_LOGICAL_UNIT_PROPERTIES|deviceFileName 

HOWEVER, that doesn't apply to the PWG5101.1 "Section 4 Media Color Names"
case, anyway.  As I read it, Section 4 is a textual convention, one of three
in the doc, which might be specified as a syntactic restriction on any
number of properties in other specifications.  There is no property name
within a structure to be cited.  I assume that the same reasoning would
apply to any other textual convention if there were no other formal syntax
to apply.  The IANA textual conventions that we cite do have a reasonable
structure because they are defined in MIBs, so that case is not comparable.
Conclusion: no problem.  

I closed off the debate by saying that we would take a look at it and send a
revised email with context so that they could understand the "Section 4"
case, however we resolved it.  We should send a very simple revised message
(again to wg-cimcore), with wording about textual conventions but not in
formal MIB or other syntax, and maybe an extract of Section 4 from the
document, declare victory, and move on.  Ira, can you make the slight
additions?

Also, a nit, I found a minor typo in PWG5101.1 when I was looking at our
friend Section 4: the first para ends with "...as defined in Table ."  It
should say "Table 1."

Have a good weekend, all. 

rick 

---------------------- 
Richard_Landau(at)dell(dot)com, Stds & System Mgt Arch, CTO Office 
+1-512-728-9023, One Dell Way, RR5-3 MS 8509, Round Rock, TX 78682 


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/291 - Release Date: 3/24/2006



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/291 - Release Date: 3/24/2006



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.2/294 - Release Date: 3/27/2006



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.2/294 - Release Date: 3/27/2006
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/wims/attachments/20060327/0d164be1/attachment.html


More information about the Wims mailing list