RE: WIMS> CIM> What is the W for?

From: William A Wagner (wamwagner@comcast.net)
Date: Mon Jan 05 2009 - 20:58:37 EST

Next message: William A Wagner: "RE: WIMS> CIM> What is the W for?"

Previous message: Harry Lewis: "RE: WIMS> CIM> What is the W for?"
In reply to: Harry Lewis: "RE: WIMS> CIM> What is the W for?"
Next in thread: Harry Lewis: "RE: WIMS> CIM> What is the W for?"
Reply: Harry Lewis: "RE: WIMS> CIM> What is the W for?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Harry,

Although the original WIMS project was the development of a service
(although we never did complete the binding) , I think we got the message
that the world was not going to accept an imaging specific standard
management protocol. (.Disappointing since vendors appear convinced that it
will accept imaging manufacturer specific protocols.) In focusing on WS-Man
and then on CIM as the path to WS-Management, we recognized that our best
contribution was in identifying the imaging device/service management
elements to be used within a standard management service (although what this
service may still not be awfully clear). We also recognized, not only that
SNMP was going to be around for a while, but that new management elements
will need to be accessible via SNMP. So, on one hand, new and updated
imaging management elements must be available in MIB form if they are to be
accessible in most environments; on the other hand, they must be compatible
with the Web Services paradigm that we expect will emerge. Indeed, Peter has
said that Xerox will not support the generation of a MIB, but presumably
would support the definition of objects characterizing the state,
capabilities and configuration of some aspect if an imaging service or
device.

In the CIM effort, WIMS has been translating the appropriate management
elements defined in MIBs to CIM MOFs. In the updated charter, I suggest that
we will not only continue to do this, but go further to translate management
elements from other structures (e.g., IPP) as well as to define new elements
(power management). Having identified such elements, WIMS must consider the
bindings, if nothing else, then just to be able to verify the validity of
these elements. (As we learned with the Counter Spec, abstract defined
elements, unimplemented and unbound to a usable transport , may have some
severe problems.) So it is expected that we will deal with MIB as well as
CIM bindings, (and perhaps others). But the essence of the work will be in
identifying the elements that allow effective management of the imaging
service and devices (with probably a stress on devices).

There is some overlap with the MFD semantics effort, largely because Ira's
original WIMS semantics were included. But the MFD effort is largely
concerned with the semantics of the services performing their functions
rather than the monitoring, configuration and maintenance of the services
and the devices executing the services. Eventually the management semantics
that we develop may be incorporated into the overall Semantic Model. But in
the meantime, hopefully, these elements will have been defined, bound to
standard protocols , and demonstrated to provided effective management of
imaging services and devices.

Hope this makes our intent clearer,

Thanks,

Bill Wagner

From: owner-wims@pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Harry
Lewis
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 7:27 PM
To: William A Wagner
Cc: wims@pwg.org
Subject: RE: WIMS> CIM> What is the W for?

Bill, sounds great. Only comment from me... didn't "S" used to stand for
"Services"? Will we, in the future, risk feeling now that the groups efforts
are LIMITED to semantics (whereas, semantics can always be viewed as
supporting services)?

Harry Lewis
Program Manager - Intellectual Property & Open Standards
Phone: 303-924-5337
e-mail: harryl@us.ibm.com
<http://www.infoprint.com/> infoprint.com

P Think before you print