WIMS> CIM> CIM Core discussion about MappingString format

From: Richard_Landau@Dell.com
Date: Fri Mar 24 2006 - 15:56:36 EST

  • Next message: McDonald, Ira: "WIMS> Posted WIMS final Schema, WSDL, and SOAP (24 March 2004)"

    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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Mar 24 2006 - 15:58:19 EST