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

From: William A Wagner (wamwagner@comcast.net)
Date: Tue Jan 06 2009 - 15:11:25 EST

  • Next message: Dave Whitehead: "RE: WIMS> CIM> What is the W for?"

    Craig and Harry,

     

    OK. You find "semantics" too limiting and too tied in with the more general
    Semantic Model activities.

     

    But it is unlikely that we will define with management systems or management
    services.

     

    How about "Workgroup for Imaging Management Solutions" ? That certainly is
    general enough to cover anything we are likely to address and non-specific
    enough so that anything we do address satisfies the term.

     

    Comments?

     

    Thanks,

     

    Bill Wagner

     

    From: owner-wims@pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Whittle,
    Craig
    Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 11:51 AM
    To: Harry Lewis; William A Wagner
    Cc: wims@pwg.org
    Subject: 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
     <http://www.infoprint.com/> 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
     <http://www.infoprint.com/> 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 - 15:12:20 EST