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

From: Whittle, Craig (cwhittle@sharplabs.com)
Date: Tue Jan 06 2009 - 11:51:28 EST

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

    Bill:

     

    I also like the broader term "Services" or "Systems" especially since
    "Semantics" might collide with the PWG semantic model (more narrow)
    activities.

     

    Best regards,

     

    **CW

     

    From: owner-wims@pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Harry
    Lewis
    Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 9:13 PM
    To: William A Wagner
    Cc: wims@pwg.org
    Subject: RE: WIMS> CIM> What is the W for?

     

    Bill, thanks.

    I certainly understand that WIMS is not developing a service per se, and
    is not likely to, given our past. I just offer that we frequently find
    ourselves looking back at the name we have chosen and prescribe a lot of
    meaning, especially limitation (eg... I see no harm in keeping the
    original definition of WIMS and allowing the scope and charter to over
    (under?) reach the name).

    So, if we changing the meaning of WIMS (which I am not opposed to), why
    restrict to "semantic" when "service" is a broader concept to which the
    semantics we are defining will ultimately apply. In my opinion, this
    would allow more leeway for future reshaping w/o name consternation.

    Alas... far too many words likely already spoken (typed) on the topic...
    so I'm OK with either final consensus or w/g Chair conclusion. Which
    ever name we choose, the same great work will ensue... I'm sure!

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

     
    P Think before you print

     

    "William A Wagner" <wamwagner@comcast.net>

    01/05/2009 06:58 PM

    To

    Harry Lewis/US/InfoPrint/IDE@IBMUS

    cc

    <wims@pwg.org>

    Subject

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

     

                    

    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
    infoprint.com <http://www.infoprint.com/>

    P Think before you print

    "William A Wagner" <wamwagner@comcast.net>
    Sent by: owner-wims@pwg.org

    01/05/2009 04:01 PM

     

    To

    <wims@pwg.org>

    cc

            
    Subject

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

      

     

                    

    I like "Workgroup for Imaging Management Semantics". Odd that we hadn't
    thought of "Work..." before.
     
    Any objections?
     
    Thanks,
     
    Bill Wagner
     
    From: owner-wims@pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Dave
    Whitehead
    Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 4:31 PM
    To: Ira McDonald
    Cc: Ira McDonald; Petrie, Glen; Harry Lewis; owner-wims@pwg.org;
    wims@pwg.org
    Subject: Re: WIMS> CIM> What is the W for?
     

    How about "Workgroup for Imaging Management Semantics" -- that way we
    don't need to explain the missing "G."

    dhw

    David H. Whitehead
    Development Engineer
    Lexmark International, Inc.
    859.825.4914
    davidatlexmarkdotcom

    "Ira McDonald" <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
    Sent by: owner-wims@pwg.org

    01/05/09 04:21 PM

      

     

    To

    "Harry Lewis" <harryl@us.ibm.com>, "Ira McDonald"
    <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>

    cc

    "Petrie, Glen" <glen.petrie@eitc.epson.com>, wims@pwg.org

    Subject

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

      

      

     

                    

    Hi,

    So, "Working Group for Imaging Management Semantics (WIMS)"

    Bill is quite right that Services is not the correct scope.

    A precedent is IETF PWG (Printer Working Group, originally
    chartered for RFC 1179 and later for RFC 1759).

    Cheers,
    - Ira

    Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
    Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
    Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
    email: blueroofmusic@gmail.com
    winter:
    579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
    734-944-0094
    summer:
    PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
    906-494-2434

    On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Harry Lewis <harryl@us.ibm.com> wrote:
    >
    > So that would be "Working group for Imaging Management Services"?
    > (Semantics?) That'd be OK.
    >
    > Also, I'd have no problem retiring both PMP and WIMS and migrating
    into ISMS
    > or some other agreeable new name.
    >
    > Also, I'd have no problem just keeping WIMS as is and not getting too
    > concerned that everything in the bucket is not "Web based".
    >
    > Harry Lewis
    > Program Manager - Intellectual Property & Open Standards
    > Phone: 303-924-5337
    > e-mail: harryl@us.ibm.com
    > infoprint.com
    >
    >
    > P Think before you print
    >
    >
    > "Petrie, Glen" <glen.petrie@eitc.epson.com>
    > Sent by: owner-wims@pwg.org
    >
    > 01/05/2009 12:21 PM
    >
    > To
    > <wims@pwg.org>
    > cc
    > Subject
    > RE: WIMS> CIM> What is the W for?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > I support W as "Working group"
    >
    > ________________________________
    > From: owner-wims@pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims@pwg.org] On Behalf Of
    > Richard_Landau@Dell.com
    > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:10 AM
    > To: wims@pwg.org
    > Subject: WIMS> CIM> What is the W for?
    >
    >
    > Re: changing the name of the WIMS group to reflect its broader scope
    >
    > If the goal is to retain the acronym WIMS, we must construct a
    suitable
    > backronym. The problem is the W, since the absorbed PMP items are not
    > "Web-based." The current charter draft suggests "Wide-scope."
    >
    > A few minutes with a dictionary yielded some other possibilities.
    >
    > Interesting but rejected:
    > - Wagner's (practical)
    > - Wonderful (boastful)
    > - Whiz-bang (flippant)
    >
    > Possible:
    > - Well-known
    > - Working group for, as in "Working group for Imaging Management
    Semantics."
    >
    > So long as the W does not stand for Washington, or for any other
    meaning of
    > "W" recently related to Washington, it's okay.
    >
    > Of course, we could always change the name slightly, since lots of
    > interesting words end in MS for Management Semantics. For example,
    Imaging
    > Systems Management Semantics, or ISMS. Has kind of a nice ring to it.
    >
    > rick
    >
    > ----------------------
    > Richard_Landau(at)dell(dot)com, Stds & System Mgt Architecture, CTO
    Office
    > +1-512-728-9023, One Dell Way, RR5-3, MS RR5-32, Round Rock, TX 78682


    image001.gif

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 06 2009 - 11:51:46 EST