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

From: Dave Whitehead (david@lexmark.com)
Date: Tue Jan 06 2009 - 15:30:05 EST

  • Next message: Richard_Landau@Dell.com: "RE: WIMS> CIM> What is the W for?"

    I like it ... ship it ...


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



    "William A Wagner" <wamwagner@comcast.net>
    Sent by: owner-wims@pwg.org
    01/06/09 03:11 PM

    To
    <wims@pwg.org>
    cc

    Subject
    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
    infoprint.com

    [IMAGE]
    PThink 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

    [IMAGE]
    PThink 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


    picture

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 06 2009 - 15:30:21 EST