Issue 4518: Logical-physical deployment modeling (cwm-rtf) Source: Adaptive (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett@adaptive.com) Nature: Revision Severity: Significant Summary: DataManager contains a reference to the specific data (at the schema level) that is being managed but is constrained to be a DeployedComponent on a specific Machine. Though a DataManager refers to the Component that it 'instantiates' there is nothing associated with Component that allows one to record what data it can manage. For example, I would like to be able to create an element called "Peopleware Payroll Application" which references the relational schema for the application. This should be possible without having to say anything about its deployment onto specific machines. A separate but related point is the lack of support for physical databases. For example, When deploying an application I then want to be able to say what physical database it's using. The value of tracking this is for backup purposes etc, and the fact that actual WarehouseOperations will need to be applied to specific databases. Proposed resolution Add new class 'PhysicalDatabase' to SoftwareDeployment Model; this will inherit from Package and will have a many-to-many association 'LogicalPhysical' with Package, and be contained by Machine (as for DeployedComponent). [May want a subslcass of Dependency between PhysicalDatabases to represent replication/federation/partitioning. Or alternatively use containment by one 'abstract' PhysicalDatabase of others to represent this, though this does not allow the exact relationship to be expressed.] Move the 'dataPackage' reference from DataManager to SoftwareSystem. Add new many-to-many reference 'databases' to DataManager with target type PhysicalDatabase. Resolution: see below Revised Text: Renumber subsections of section 5.7.2 (document formal/2001-10-01, pages 5-62 though 5-66) as follows: From To 5.7.2.1 5.7.2.1 5.7.2.2 5.7.2.3 5.7.2.3 5.7.2.4 5.7.2.4 5.7.2.5 5.7.2.5 5.7.2.6 5.7.2.6 5.7.2.8 5.7.2.7 5.7.2.9 5.7.2.8 5.7.2.10 5.7.2.9 5.7.2.11 5.7.2.10 5.7.2.12 In the CWM specification (document formal/2001-10-01), insert new section 5.7.2.2 on page 5-62 following existing section 5.7.2.1, with the text: 5.7.2.2 ComponentDesign This associates Components with the Packages containing its design. Typically this will reference the logical schema. Ends component Identifies the Component instances whose design is described by this Package. class: Component multiplicity: zero or more designPackage Identifies the Package instance containing the Component's design. class: Package multiplicity: zero or more In the CWM Rose model (document ad/01-02-07), define the CWM::Foundation::SoftwareDeployment::ComponentDesign association consistent with its immediately preceding definition in the specification. In the CWM XML file (document ad/01-02-03), add the following definition for the ComponentDesign association immediately following the definition of DeployedSoftwareSystemComponents that ends on line 2818 and immediately preceding the definition of ComponentDeployments that begins on line 2819 (note that XML attributes whose values are represented as '<<id>>' will be replaced by appropriate values when the XML file is created by the generation software): <Model:Association xmi.id='<<id>>' name='ComponentDesign' annotation='This associates Components with the Packages containing its design. Typically this will reference the logical schema.' isRoot='true' isLeaf='true' isAbstract='false' visibility='public_vis' isDerived='false'> <Model:Namespace.contents> <Model:AssociationEnd xmi.id='<<id>>' name='component' annotation='Identifies the Component instances whose design is described by this Package.' isNavigable='true' aggregation='none' isChangeable='true' type='<<id>>'> <Model:AssociationEnd.multiplicity> <XMI.field>0</XMI.field> <!-- lower --> <XMI.field>-1</XMI.field> <!-- upper --> <XMI.field>false</XMI.field> <!-- is_ordered --> <XMI.field>true</XMI.field> <!-- is_unique --> </Model:AssociationEnd.multiplicity> </Model:AssociationEnd> <Model:AssociationEnd xmi.id='<<id>>' name='designPackage' annotation='Identifies the Package instance containing the Component's design.' isNavigable='true' aggregation='none' isChangeable='true' type='<<id>>'> <Model:AssociationEnd.multiplicity> <XMI.field>0</XMI.field> <!-- lower --> <XMI.field>-1</XMI.field> <!-- upper --> <XMI.field>false</XMI.field> <!-- is_ordered --> <XMI.field>false</XMI.field> <!-- is_unique --> </Model:AssociationEnd.multiplicity> </Model:AssociationEnd> </Model:Namespace.contents> </Model:Association> In the CWM IDL zip file (document ad/01-02-06), add the following interface definitions for the ComponentDesign association in the SoftwareDeployment.idl file between lines 718 and 719: struct ComponentDesignLink { Component component; Core::Package package; }; typedef sequence<ComponentDesignLink> ComponentDesignSet; interface ComponentDesign : Reflective::RefAssociation { ComponentDesignLinkSet all_component_design_links() raises (Reflective::MofError); boolean exists ( in Component component, in Core::Package design_package) raises (Reflective::MofError); ComponentDesignSet component (in Core::Package design_package) raises (Reflective::MofError); Core::Package design_package (in Component component) raises (Reflective::MofError); void add ( in Component component, in Core::Package design_package) raises (Reflective::MofError); void modify_component ( in Component component, in Core::Package design_package, in Component new_component) raises (Reflective::NotFound, Reflective::MofError); void modify_design_package ( in Component component, in Core::Package design_package, in Core::Package new_design_package) raises (Reflective::NotFound, Reflective::MofError); void remove ( in Component compnent, in Core::Package design_package) raises (Reflective::NotFound, Reflective::MofError); }; // end of interface ComponentDesign In the CWM specification (document formal/2001-10-01), insert new section 5.7.2.7 on page 5-64 following the newly renumbered section 5.7.2.6, with the text: 8.7.2.7 DeployedComponentUsage This links a DeployedComponent to the other DeployedComponents that it uses. Typically this might link a deployed application to the physical databases (instances of DataManager) that it accesses. Ends usedComponents Identifies the DeployedComponent instances that use this DeployedComponent. class: DeployedComponent multiplicity: zero or more usingComponents Identifies the DeployedComponent instances that this DeployedComponent instance uses. class: DeployedComponent multiplicity: zero or more In the CWM Rose model (document ad/01-02-07), define the CWM::Foundation::SoftwareDeployment::DeployedComponentUsage association consistent with its immediately preceding definition in the specification. In the CWM XML file (document ad/01-02-03), add the following definition for the DeployedComponentUsage association immediately following the definition of SiteMachines that ends on line 2718 and immediately preceding the definition of DataProviderConnections that begins on line 2719 (note that XML attributes whose values are represented as '<<id>>' will be replaced by appropriate values when the XML file is created by the generation software): <Model:Association xmi.id='<<id>>' name='DeployedComponentUsage' annotation='This links a DeployedComponent to the other DeployedComponents that it uses. Typically this might link a deployed application to the physical databases (instances of DataManager) that it accesses.' isRoot='true' isLeaf='true' isAbstract='false' visibility='public_vis' isDerived='false'> <Model:Namespace.contents> <Model:AssociationEnd xmi.id='<<id>>' name='usedComponents' annotation='Identifies the DeployedComponent instances that use this DeployedComponent.' isNavigable='true' aggregation='none' isChangeable='true' type='<<id>>'> <Model:AssociationEnd.multiplicity> <XMI.field>0</XMI.field> <!-- lower --> <XMI.field>-1</XMI.field> <!-- upper --> <XMI.field>false</XMI.field> <!-- is_ordered --> <XMI.field>true</XMI.field> <!-- is_unique --> </Model:AssociationEnd.multiplicity> </Model:AssociationEnd> <Model:AssociationEnd xmi.id='<<id>>' name='usingComponents' annotation='Identifies the DeployedComponent instances that this DeployedComponent instance uses.' isNavigable='true' aggregation='none' isChangeable='true' type='<<id>>'> <Model:AssociationEnd.multiplicity> <XMI.field>0</XMI.field> <!-- lower --> <XMI.field>-1</XMI.field> <!-- upper --> <XMI.field>false</XMI.field> <!-- is_ordered --> <XMI.field>false</XMI.field> <!-- is_unique --> </Model:AssociationEnd.multiplicity> </Model:AssociationEnd> </Model:Namespace.contents> </Model:Association> In the CWM IDL zip file (document ad/01-02-06), add the following interface definitions for the ComponentDesign association in the SoftwareDeployment.idl file following the definition of the ComponentDesign association already inserted between lines 718 and 719: struct DeployedComponentUsageLink { DeployedComponent used_component; DeployedComponent using_component; }; typedef sequence<DeployedComponentUsageLink> DeployedCompnentUsageSet; interface DeployedComponentUsage : Reflective::RefAssociation { DeployedComponentUsageLinkSet all_deployed_component_usage_links() raises (Reflective::MofError); boolean exists ( in DeployedComponent used_component, in DeployedComponent using_component) raises (Reflective::MofError); DeployeComponentSet used_component (in DeployedComponent using_component) raises (Reflective::MofError); DeployeComponentSet using_component (in DeployedComponent used_component) raises (Reflective::MofError); void add ( in DeployedComponent used_component, in DeployedComponent using_component) raises (Reflective::MofError); void modify_used_component ( in DeployedComponent used_component, in DeployedComponent using_component, in DeployedComponent new_used_component) raises (Reflective::NotFound, Reflective::MofError); void modify_using_component ( in DeployedComponent used_component, in DeployedComponent using_component, in DeployedComponent using_component) raises (Reflective::NotFound, Reflective::MofError); void remove ( in DeployedComponent used_component, in DeployedComponent using_component) raises (Reflective::NotFound, Reflective::MofError); }; // end of interface DeployedComponentUsage In the CWM specification (document formal/2001-10-01), change Figure 5-12 to add new ComponentDesign and DeployedComponentUsage associations, from to Actions taken: August 19, 2001: May 13, 2002: closed issue Discussion: Resolution: a) Add new many-to-many Association ComponentDesign between Component and Package (with one reference Component.designPackage). And description "This associates Components with the Packages containing its design. Typically this will reference the logical schema." b) Add new many-to-many recursive Association DeployedComponentUsage on DeployedComponent (with references usedComponents and usingComponents). And description "This links a DeployedComponent to the other DeployedComponents that it uses. Typically this might link a deployed application to the physical databases (instances of DataManager) that it accesses." End of Annotations:===== From: webmaster@omg.org Message-Id: <200108192128.f7JLSmt00230@emerald.omg.org> Date: 19 Aug 2001 17:32:17 -0400 To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Issue/Bug Report Content-Type: Text/html; charset=windows-1252 X-UIDL: W!8e9Flld9eJWd9I!A!! Name: Pete Rivett Company: Adaptive mailFrom: pete.rivett@adaptive.com Notification: Yes Specification: CWM Section: 8 FormalNumber: ad/01-02-01 Version: 1.0 RevisionDate: 02/02/01 Page: various Nature: Revision Severity: Significant HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0) Description Logical-physical deployment modeling DataManager contains a reference to the specific data (at the schema level) that is being managed but is constrained to be a DeployedComponent on a specific Machine. Though a DataManager refers to the Component that it 'instantiates' there is nothing associated with Component that allows one to record what data it can manage. For example, I would like to be able to create an element called "Peopleware Payroll Application" which references the relational schema for the application. This should be possible without having to say anything about its deployment onto specific machines. A separate but related point is the lack of support for physical databases. For example, When deploying an application I then want to be able to say what physical database it's using. The value of tracking this is for backup purposes etc, and the fact that actual WarehouseOperations will need to be applied to specific databases. Proposed resolution Add new class 'PhysicalDatabase' to SoftwareDeployment Model; this will inherit from Package and will have a many-to-many association 'LogicalPhysical' with Package, and be contained by Machine (as for DeployedComponent). [May want a subslcass of Dependency between PhysicalDatabases to represent replication/federation/partitioning. Or alternatively use containment by one 'abstract' PhysicalDatabase of others to represent this, though this does not allow the exact relationship to be expressed.] Move the 'dataPackage' reference from DataManager to SoftwareSystem. Add new many-to-many reference 'databases' to DataManager with target type PhysicalDatabase. Subject: Re: CWM Issue 4518 - Logical-physical deployment modeling To: "Pete Rivett" Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org, juergen@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.7 March 21, 2001 Message-ID: From: "Dan Chang" Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 08:58:53 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM069/03/M/IBM(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 09/25/2001 09:58:54 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by emerald.omg.org id f8PFqTN05953 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-UIDL: FY*e90- ptive.com> cc: Subject: CWM Issue 4518 - Logical-physical deployment 09/23/01 04:39 modeling PM >From the Toronto meeting I took an action to clarify the Issue (which I am entitled to make as the original raiser) and make a proposed resolution. Here it is. I have reflected these changes in a new softwaredeployment.cat which I can make available to whoever is building the master model. [Juergen could you please update the issues database] ------------- DataManager contains a reference to the specific data (at the schema level) that is being managed but is constrained to be a DeployedComponent on a specific Machine. Though a DataManager refers to the Component that it 'instantiates' there is nothing associated with Component that allows one to record what data it can manage. For example, I would like to be able to create an element called "Peopleware Payroll Application" which references the relational schema for the application. This should be possible without having to say anything about its deployment onto specific machines. A separate but related point is the lack of support for linking deployed components to physical databases. The value of tracking this is for backup purposes etc, and the fact that actual WarehouseOperations will need to be applied to specific databases. Proposed resolution a) Add new many-to-many Association ComponentDesign between Component and Package (with references designPackage and component). And description "This associates Components with the Packages containing its design. Typically this will reference the logical schema." b) Add new many-to-many recursive Association DeployedComponentUsage on DeployedComponent (with references usedComponents and usingComponents). And description "This links a DeployedComponent to the other DeployedComponents that it uses. Typically this might link a deployed application to the physical databases (instances of DataManager) that it accesses." c) Add a reference Component.deployment for the existing association to deployedComponent: this appears to be omitted for no obvious reason. Pete Pete Rivett (pete.rivett@adaptive.com) Chief Technology Officer, Adaptive Ltd Dean Park House, 8-10 Dean Park Crescent, Bournemouth, BH1 1HL, UK Tel: +44 (0)1202 449419 Fax: +44 (0)1202 449448 http://www.adaptive.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Pete Rivett [mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com] > Sent: 14 September 2001 16:10 > To: 'cwm-rtf@omg.org' > Subject: Outcome of RTF discussions at Toronto > > > The following is a list of the issues that, in addition to > those which were on the RTF agenda, were agreed to be > candidates for CWM 1.1. Where further actions are needed (see > below) a timebox approach will be taken to maintain the RTF > completion date. > > 4482 - optimize data values - action Pete to revise proposal > with examples to address the concerns discussed at the meeting > 4518 - logical-physical - genuine issue (deployed component > to deployed component, component to package), action Pete to > revise proposal > 4519 - process-physical - the requirement can likely be met > with the existing model: action Dan to provide sample > interchange format to show how a logical transformation can > be applied to a specific physical source for a specific process. > > 4509 - use of MOF 1.4 - action Pete to quantify impact of new > MOF datatype model. Benefit is ability to use JMI. > > 4467 - XML Schema: we will timebox this and only include if > Dan can propose complete Rose model by end Sept. > > 4475 - att.initialvalue mandatory - just do it > 4405 - wrong extra dependency arrow - just do it > 4469 - missing letters on diagrams - just do it > 4514 - supplier and version: just propose adding string > attribute 'fixLevel' to DeployedSoftwareSystem and making > supplier and version optional on SoftwareSystem. > > (new issue to be raised) - add metamodel structuring > guideline in section 6 (use of packages, <>s and > compliance points) > > > Pete Rivett (pete.rivett@adaptive.com) > Chief Technology Officer, Adaptive Ltd > Dean Park House, 8-10 Dean Park Crescent, Bournemouth, BH1 1HL, UK > Tel: +44 (0)1202 449419 Fax: +44 (0)1202 449448 > http://www.adaptive.com > > > The information contained in this email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). The e-mail may be legally privileged or prohibited from disclosure and unauthorised use. If you are not the named addressee you may not use, copy or disclose this information to any other person. If you received this message in error please notify the sender immediately. Any views or opinions presented here may be solely those of the originator and do not necessarily reflect those of the Company. From: "Pete Rivett" To: "'Dan Chang'" Cc: , Subject: RE: CWM Issue 4518 - Logical-physical deployment modeling and 4482 - Optimize Instance data values Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 18:15:37 +0100 Message-ID: <003b01c145e5$b27df0f0$a6a823d9@CHIMAY> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: 8K`d9aCgd9k'p!!M:>!! Dan, I'm somewhat surprised at you attempting to exclude these resolutions from consideration for CWM 1.1. I took the actions and put in the effort (over a weekend!) to recast the resolutions on the basis that if the model changes could be complete by the end of September then they would be considered for CWM 1.1; in the same way that we agreed that if you could complete your XML metamodel revision by the end of September then that would also be considered. For the latter you replied that because your workload did not allow you to achieve the end-September date then it would need to be put back to CWM 1.2 (with the implication that otherwise it would have been included). Further, I was reminded at the DataMining teleconference last Thursday that if I wanted to get the changes included in CWM 1.1 then I'd better get my skates on. I completed the action within 2 days and made clear that I had the .cat files available (the more complex of which I posted): what more was I supposed to do? If the cut-off was really 8/24, then what was the point of the discussion and actions on these issues at Toronto (including the action you took for XML), and the reminder last week at the teleconference? And why did we accept a revised resolution to Issue 4514 which also requires model changes, was devised only at Toronto, and included in the block vote of last week (and for which, as far as I am aware, we still do not have a revised .cat file)? Since we have not ruled out further issue votes for CWM 1.1, I propose that rather than get into an email exchange on whether the changes are 'too late' or not, that we consider these resolutions on their merits and move to a vote. I should add that both solve real problems we have found during implementation, are small changes, and are additive so will not cause forward compatibility problems with CWM 1.0. Regards, Pete Pete Rivett (pete.rivett@adaptive.com) Chief Technology Officer, Adaptive Ltd Dean Park House, 8-10 Dean Park Crescent, Bournemouth, BH1 1HL, UK Tel: +44 (0)1202 449419 Fax: +44 (0)1202 449448 http://www.adaptive.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Chang [mailto:dtchang@us.ibm.com] > Sent: 25 September 2001 16:59 > To: Pete Rivett > Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org; juergen@omg.org > Subject: Re: CWM Issue 4518 - Logical-physical deployment modeling > > > > Pete, > > Thank you for the revised write-up and proposed resolution. Since the > proposed resolution involves model changes and is submitted beyond the > cut-off date (8/24), we will discuss it after CWM 1.1. > > Regards, Dan > > Metadata Management Technology and Standard > IBM DBTI for e-Business > Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS > Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com > VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG) > Phone: (408)-463-2319 > > > > > "Pete Rivett" > > > ptive.com> cc: > > Subject: CWM > Issue 4518 - Logical-physical deployment > 09/23/01 04:39 modeling > > PM > > > > > > > > > >From the Toronto meeting I took an action to clarify the > Issue (which I am > entitled to make as the original raiser) and make a proposed > resolution. > Here it is. > I have reflected these changes in a new > softwaredeployment.cat which I can > make available to whoever is building the master model. > [Juergen could you please update the issues database] > ------------- > > DataManager contains a reference to the specific data (at the > schema level) > that is being managed but is constrained to be a > DeployedComponent on a > specific Machine. Though a DataManager refers to the Component that it > 'instantiates' there is nothing associated with Component > that allows one > to > record what data it can manage. For example, I would like to > be able to > create an element called "Peopleware Payroll Application" > which references > the relational schema for the application. This should be > possible without > having to say anything about its deployment onto specific machines. > > A separate but related point is the lack of support for > linking deployed > components to physical databases. The value of tracking this > is for backup > purposes etc, and the fact that actual WarehouseOperations > will need to be > applied to specific databases. > > Proposed resolution > a) Add new many-to-many Association ComponentDesign between > Component and > Package (with references designPackage and component). And description > "This > associates Components with the Packages containing its > design. Typically > this will reference the logical schema." > > b) Add new many-to-many recursive Association > DeployedComponentUsage on > DeployedComponent (with references usedComponents and > usingComponents). And > description "This links a DeployedComponent to the other > DeployedComponents > that it uses. Typically this might link a deployed application to the > physical databases (instances of DataManager) that it accesses." > > c) Add a reference Component.deployment for the existing > association to > deployedComponent: this appears to be omitted for no obvious reason. > > > Pete > > Pete Rivett (pete.rivett@adaptive.com) > Chief Technology Officer, Adaptive Ltd > Dean Park House, 8-10 Dean Park Crescent, Bournemouth, BH1 1HL, UK > Tel: +44 (0)1202 449419 Fax: +44 (0)1202 449448 > http://www.adaptive.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pete Rivett [mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com] > > Sent: 14 September 2001 16:10 > > To: 'cwm-rtf@omg.org' > > Subject: Outcome of RTF discussions at Toronto > > > > > > The following is a list of the issues that, in addition to > > those which were on the RTF agenda, were agreed to be > > candidates for CWM 1.1. Where further actions are needed (see > > below) a timebox approach will be taken to maintain the RTF > > completion date. > > > > 4482 - optimize data values - action Pete to revise proposal > > with examples to address the concerns discussed at the meeting > > 4518 - logical-physical - genuine issue (deployed component > > to deployed component, component to package), action Pete to > > revise proposal > > 4519 - process-physical - the requirement can likely be met > > with the existing model: action Dan to provide sample > > interchange format to show how a logical transformation can > > be applied to a specific physical source for a specific process. > > > > 4509 - use of MOF 1.4 - action Pete to quantify impact of new > > MOF datatype model. Benefit is ability to use JMI. > > > > 4467 - XML Schema: we will timebox this and only include if > > Dan can propose complete Rose model by end Sept. > > > > 4475 - att.initialvalue mandatory - just do it > > 4405 - wrong extra dependency arrow - just do it > > 4469 - missing letters on diagrams - just do it > > 4514 - supplier and version: just propose adding string > > attribute 'fixLevel' to DeployedSoftwareSystem and making > > supplier and version optional on SoftwareSystem. > > > > (new issue to be raised) - add metamodel structuring > > guideline in section 6 (use of packages, <>s and > > compliance points) > > > > > > Pete Rivett (pete.rivett@adaptive.com) > > Chief Technology Officer, Adaptive Ltd > > Dean Park House, 8-10 Dean Park Crescent, Bournemouth, BH1 1HL, UK > > Tel: +44 (0)1202 449419 Fax: +44 (0)1202 449448 > > http://www.adaptive.com > > > > > > > > > The information contained in this email and any attached files are > confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). The > e-mail may be > legally privileged or prohibited from disclosure and unauthorised use. > > If you are not the named addressee you may not use, copy or > disclose this > information to any other person. If you received this > message in error > please notify the sender immediately. > > Any views or opinions presented here may be solely those of > the originator > and do not necessarily reflect those of the Company. > > > > > > The information contained in this email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). The e-mail may be legally privileged or prohibited from disclosure and unauthorised use. If you are not the named addressee you may not use, copy or disclose this information to any other person. If you received this message in error please notify the sender immediately. Any views or opinions presented here may be solely those of the originator and do not necessarily reflect those of the Company. From: "Iyengar, Sridhar" To: Pete Rivett , "'Dan Chang'" Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org, juergen@omg.org Subject: RE: CWM Issue 4518 - Logical-physical deployment modeling and 448 2 - Optimize Instance data values Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 12:27:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: ~kGe9'g7e9hT:e9!/0e9 Dan If the resolutons Pete has proposed are technically complete and will not affect the schedule of the remaining work that needs to be completed for CWM 1.1, I suggest (of course with agreement from the rest of the RTF) that you consider folding these changes into 1.1. In the MOF and XMI RTF's we have used this approach - especially when a dedicated RTF member has taken the time and energy to resolve the issue. This might help avoid RTF members from raising 'urgent issues' - except as a last resort. Technically (i.e per P&P) I agree that the RTF does not 'have' to look at issues posted past the comment deadline, but the RTF can use its judgement. Sridhar ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- Sridhar Iyengar Unisys Fellow, Director of Advanced Technology 25725, Jeronimo Road Mission Viejo, CA 92691 E-mail : Sridhar.iyengar2@unisys.com Phone : 949-380-5692 Fax : 949-380-6632 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Pete Rivett [mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 10:16 AM > To: 'Dan Chang' > Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org; juergen@omg.org > Subject: RE: CWM Issue 4518 - Logical-physical deployment modeling and > 4482 - Optimize Instance data values > > > Dan, > I'm somewhat surprised at you attempting to exclude these > resolutions from > consideration for CWM 1.1. > I took the actions and put in the effort (over a weekend!) to > recast the > resolutions on the basis that if the model changes could be > complete by the > end of September then they would be considered for CWM 1.1; > in the same way > that we agreed that if you could complete your XML metamodel > revision by the > end of September then that would also be considered. For the > latter you > replied that because your workload did not allow you to achieve the > end-September date then it would need to be put back to CWM > 1.2 (with the > implication that otherwise it would have been included). > > Further, I was reminded at the DataMining teleconference last > Thursday that > if I wanted to get the changes included in CWM 1.1 then I'd > better get my > skates on. > I completed the action within 2 days and made clear that I > had the .cat > files available (the more complex of which I posted): what more was I > supposed to do? > > If the cut-off was really 8/24, then what was the point of > the discussion > and actions on these issues at Toronto (including the action > you took for > XML), and the reminder last week at the teleconference? And why did we > accept a revised resolution to Issue 4514 which also requires > model changes, > was devised only at Toronto, and included in the block vote > of last week > (and for which, as far as I am aware, we still do not have a > revised .cat > file)? > > Since we have not ruled out further issue votes for CWM 1.1, > I propose that > rather than get into an email exchange on whether the changes > are 'too late' > or not, that we consider these resolutions on their merits > and move to a > vote. I should add that both solve real problems we have found during > implementation, are small changes, and are additive so will not cause > forward compatibility problems with CWM 1.0. > > Regards, > Pete > > Pete Rivett (pete.rivett@adaptive.com) > Chief Technology Officer, Adaptive Ltd > Dean Park House, 8-10 Dean Park Crescent, Bournemouth, BH1 1HL, UK > Tel: +44 (0)1202 449419 Fax: +44 (0)1202 449448 > http://www.adaptive.com > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dan Chang [mailto:dtchang@us.ibm.com] > > Sent: 25 September 2001 16:59 > > To: Pete Rivett > > Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org; juergen@omg.org > > Subject: Re: CWM Issue 4518 - Logical-physical deployment modeling > > > > > > > > Pete, > > > > Thank you for the revised write-up and proposed resolution. > Since the > > proposed resolution involves model changes and is submitted > beyond the > > cut-off date (8/24), we will discuss it after CWM 1.1. > > > > Regards, Dan > > > > Metadata Management Technology and Standard > > IBM DBTI for e-Business > > Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS > > Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com > > VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG) > > Phone: (408)-463-2319 > > > > > > > > > > "Pete Rivett" > > > > > > > ptive.com> cc: > > > > Subject: CWM > > Issue 4518 - Logical-physical deployment > > 09/23/01 04:39 modeling > > > > PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From the Toronto meeting I took an action to clarify the > > Issue (which I am > > entitled to make as the original raiser) and make a proposed > > resolution. > > Here it is. > > I have reflected these changes in a new > > softwaredeployment.cat which I can > > make available to whoever is building the master model. > > [Juergen could you please update the issues database] > > ------------- > > > > DataManager contains a reference to the specific data (at the > > schema level) > > that is being managed but is constrained to be a > > DeployedComponent on a > > specific Machine. Though a DataManager refers to the > Component that it > > 'instantiates' there is nothing associated with Component > > that allows one > > to > > record what data it can manage. For example, I would like to > > be able to > > create an element called "Peopleware Payroll Application" > > which references > > the relational schema for the application. This should be > > possible without > > having to say anything about its deployment onto specific machines. > > > > A separate but related point is the lack of support for > > linking deployed > > components to physical databases. The value of tracking this > > is for backup > > purposes etc, and the fact that actual WarehouseOperations > > will need to be > > applied to specific databases. > > > > Proposed resolution > > a) Add new many-to-many Association ComponentDesign between > > Component and > > Package (with references designPackage and component). And > description > > "This > > associates Components with the Packages containing its > > design. Typically > > this will reference the logical schema." > > > > b) Add new many-to-many recursive Association > > DeployedComponentUsage on > > DeployedComponent (with references usedComponents and > > usingComponents). And > > description "This links a DeployedComponent to the other > > DeployedComponents > > that it uses. Typically this might link a deployed > application to the > > physical databases (instances of DataManager) that it accesses." > > > > c) Add a reference Component.deployment for the existing > > association to > > deployedComponent: this appears to be omitted for no obvious reason. > > > > > > Pete > > > > Pete Rivett (pete.rivett@adaptive.com) > > Chief Technology Officer, Adaptive Ltd > > Dean Park House, 8-10 Dean Park Crescent, Bournemouth, BH1 1HL, UK > > Tel: +44 (0)1202 449419 Fax: +44 (0)1202 449448 > > http://www.adaptive.com > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Pete Rivett [mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com] > > > Sent: 14 September 2001 16:10 > > > To: 'cwm-rtf@omg.org' > > > Subject: Outcome of RTF discussions at Toronto > > > > > > > > > The following is a list of the issues that, in addition to > > > those which were on the RTF agenda, were agreed to be > > > candidates for CWM 1.1. Where further actions are needed (see > > > below) a timebox approach will be taken to maintain the RTF > > > completion date. > > > > > > 4482 - optimize data values - action Pete to revise proposal > > > with examples to address the concerns discussed at the meeting > > > 4518 - logical-physical - genuine issue (deployed component > > > to deployed component, component to package), action Pete to > > > revise proposal > > > 4519 - process-physical - the requirement can likely be met > > > with the existing model: action Dan to provide sample > > > interchange format to show how a logical transformation can > > > be applied to a specific physical source for a specific process. > > > > > > 4509 - use of MOF 1.4 - action Pete to quantify impact of new > > > MOF datatype model. Benefit is ability to use JMI. > > > > > > 4467 - XML Schema: we will timebox this and only include if > > > Dan can propose complete Rose model by end Sept. > > > > > > 4475 - att.initialvalue mandatory - just do it > > > 4405 - wrong extra dependency arrow - just do it > > > 4469 - missing letters on diagrams - just do it > > > 4514 - supplier and version: just propose adding string > > > attribute 'fixLevel' to DeployedSoftwareSystem and making > > > supplier and version optional on SoftwareSystem. > > > > > > (new issue to be raised) - add metamodel structuring > > > guideline in section 6 (use of packages, <>s and > > > compliance points) > > > > > > > > > Pete Rivett (pete.rivett@adaptive.com) > > > Chief Technology Officer, Adaptive Ltd > > > Dean Park House, 8-10 Dean Park Crescent, Bournemouth, BH1 1HL, UK > > > Tel: +44 (0)1202 449419 Fax: +44 (0)1202 449448 > > > http://www.adaptive.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The information contained in this email and any attached files are > > confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). The > > e-mail may be > > legally privileged or prohibited from disclosure and > unauthorised use. > > > > If you are not the named addressee you may not use, copy or > > disclose this > > information to any other person. If you received this > > message in error > > please notify the sender immediately. > > > > Any views or opinions presented here may be solely those of > > the originator > > and do not necessarily reflect those of the Company. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The information contained in this email and any attached > files are confidential and intended solely for the > addressee(s). The e-mail may be legally privileged or > prohibited from disclosure and unauthorised use. > > If you are not the named addressee you may not use, copy or > disclose this information to any other person. If you > received this message in error please notify the sender immediately. > > Any views or opinions presented here may be solely those of > the originator and do not necessarily reflect those of the Company. > Subject: RE: CWM Issue 4518 - Logical-physical deployment modeling and 4482 - Optimize Instance data values To: "Pete Rivett" Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org, juergen@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.7 March 21, 2001 Message-ID: From: "Dan Chang" Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:28:15 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM069/03/M/IBM(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 09/25/2001 12:28:18 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: Q)Yd9\b6!!n'Pd9D$fd9 Pete, Issue 4514 (raised by you) involved minor, trivial model changes and the changes were reviewed and agreed to by the CWM RTF in Toronto. The proposed, revised XML metamodel was reviewed in Danvers. I did not have time to complete it by the deadline (8/24) and, therefore, in Toronto I did not submit it to the CWM RTF for further review. In Toronto you expressed a need for it, as a result, he CWM RTF agreed to an exception by setting a new deadline (9/28) for it. However, I determined on 9/17 that I would not be able to meet the new deadline and informed you and the CMW RTF immediately. Both issues that you have just revised and proposed resolutions for involve model changes which are nontrivial. The changes have not been made available for review and discussion. Since all revised chapters are due on 10/1 (except for Data Mining, which is due 10/8), I don't see how we can do a quality job on these issues by voting on their newly proposed resolutions without review and discussion. Even urgent issues require two weeks of review and discussion, as you know. That is why I suggested that these issues be reviewed, discussed and resolved after CWM 1.1. Regards, Dan Metadata Management Technology and Standard IBM DBTI for e-Business Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG) Phone: (408)-463-2319 "Pete Rivett" cc: , Subject: RE: CWM Issue 4518 - Logical-physical deployment 09/25/01 10:15 modeling and 4482 - Optimize Instance data values AM Dan, I'm somewhat surprised at you attempting to exclude these resolutions from consideration for CWM 1.1. I took the actions and put in the effort (over a weekend!) to recast the resolutions on the basis that if the model changes could be complete by the end of September then they would be considered for CWM 1.1; in the same way that we agreed that if you could complete your XML metamodel revision by the end of September then that would also be considered. For the latter you replied that because your workload did not allow you to achieve the end-September date then it would need to be put back to CWM 1.2 (with the implication that otherwise it would have been included). Further, I was reminded at the DataMining teleconference last Thursday that if I wanted to get the changes included in CWM 1.1 then I'd better get my skates on. I completed the action within 2 days and made clear that I had the .cat files available (the more complex of which I posted): what more was I supposed to do? If the cut-off was really 8/24, then what was the point of the discussion and actions on these issues at Toronto (including the action you took for XML), and the reminder last week at the teleconference? And why did we accept a revised resolution to Issue 4514 which also requires model changes, was devised only at Toronto, and included in the block vote of last week (and for which, as far as I am aware, we still do not have a revised .cat file)? Since we have not ruled out further issue votes for CWM 1.1, I propose that rather than get into an email exchange on whether the changes are 'too late' or not, that we consider these resolutions on their merits and move to a vote. I should add that both solve real problems we have found during implementation, are small changes, and are additive so will not cause forward compatibility problems with CWM 1.0. Regards, Pete Pete Rivett (pete.rivett@adaptive.com) Chief Technology Officer, Adaptive Ltd Dean Park House, 8-10 Dean Park Crescent, Bournemouth, BH1 1HL, UK Tel: +44 (0)1202 449419 Fax: +44 (0)1202 449448 http://www.adaptive.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Chang [mailto:dtchang@us.ibm.com] > Sent: 25 September 2001 16:59 > To: Pete Rivett > Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org; juergen@omg.org > Subject: Re: CWM Issue 4518 - Logical-physical deployment modeling > > > > Pete, > > Thank you for the revised write-up and proposed resolution. Since the > proposed resolution involves model changes and is submitted beyond the > cut-off date (8/24), we will discuss it after CWM 1.1. > > Regards, Dan > > Metadata Management Technology and Standard > IBM DBTI for e-Business > Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS > Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com > VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG) > Phone: (408)-463-2319 > > > > > "Pete Rivett" > > > ptive.com> cc: > > Subject: CWM > Issue 4518 - Logical-physical deployment > 09/23/01 04:39 modeling > > PM > > > > > > > > > >From the Toronto meeting I took an action to clarify the > Issue (which I am > entitled to make as the original raiser) and make a proposed > resolution. > Here it is. > I have reflected these changes in a new > softwaredeployment.cat which I can > make available to whoever is building the master model. > [Juergen could you please update the issues database] > ------------- > > DataManager contains a reference to the specific data (at the > schema level) > that is being managed but is constrained to be a > DeployedComponent on a > specific Machine. Though a DataManager refers to the Component that it > 'instantiates' there is nothing associated with Component > that allows one > to > record what data it can manage. For example, I would like to > be able to > create an element called "Peopleware Payroll Application" > which references > the relational schema for the application. This should be > possible without > having to say anything about its deployment onto specific machines. > > A separate but related point is the lack of support for > linking deployed > components to physical databases. The value of tracking this > is for backup > purposes etc, and the fact that actual WarehouseOperations > will need to be > applied to specific databases. > > Proposed resolution > a) Add new many-to-many Association ComponentDesign between > Component and > Package (with references designPackage and component). And description > "This > associates Components with the Packages containing its > design. Typically > this will reference the logical schema." > > b) Add new many-to-many recursive Association > DeployedComponentUsage on > DeployedComponent (with references usedComponents and > usingComponents). And > description "This links a DeployedComponent to the other > DeployedComponents > that it uses. Typically this might link a deployed application to the > physical databases (instances of DataManager) that it accesses." > > c) Add a reference Component.deployment for the existing > association to > deployedComponent: this appears to be omitted for no obvious reason. > > > Pete > > Pete Rivett (pete.rivett@adaptive.com) > Chief Technology Officer, Adaptive Ltd > Dean Park House, 8-10 Dean Park Crescent, Bournemouth, BH1 1HL, UK > Tel: +44 (0)1202 449419 Fax: +44 (0)1202 449448 > http://www.adaptive.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pete Rivett [mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com] > > Sent: 14 September 2001 16:10 > > To: 'cwm-rtf@omg.org' > > Subject: Outcome of RTF discussions at Toronto > > > > > > The following is a list of the issues that, in addition to > > those which were on the RTF agenda, were agreed to be > > candidates for CWM 1.1. Where further actions are needed (see > > below) a timebox approach will be taken to maintain the RTF > > completion date. > > > > 4482 - optimize data values - action Pete to revise proposal > > with examples to address the concerns discussed at the meeting > > 4518 - logical-physical - genuine issue (deployed component > > to deployed component, component to package), action Pete to > > revise proposal > > 4519 - process-physical - the requirement can likely be met > > with the existing model: action Dan to provide sample > > interchange format to show how a logical transformation can > > be applied to a specific physical source for a specific process. > > > > 4509 - use of MOF 1.4 - action Pete to quantify impact of new > > MOF datatype model. Benefit is ability to use JMI. > > > > 4467 - XML Schema: we will timebox this and only include if > > Dan can propose complete Rose model by end Sept. > > > > 4475 - att.initialvalue mandatory - just do it > > 4405 - wrong extra dependency arrow - just do it > > 4469 - missing letters on diagrams - just do it > > 4514 - supplier and version: just propose adding string > > attribute 'fixLevel'> supplier and version optional on SoftwareSystem. > > (new issue to be raised) - add metamodel structuring > guideline in section 6 (use of packages, <>s and > compliance points) > > > Pete Rivett (pete.rivett@adaptive.com) > Chief Technology Officer, Adaptive Ltd > Dean Park House, 8-10 Dean Park Crescent, Bournemouth, BH1 1HL, UK > Tel: +44 (0)1202 449419 Fax: +44 (0)1202 449448 > http://www.adaptive.com > > > The information contained in this email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). The e-mail may be legally privileged or prohibited from disclosure and unauthorised use. If you are not the named addressee you may not use, copy or disclose this information to any other person. If you received this message in error please notify the sender immediately. Any views or opinions presented here may be solely those of the originator and do not necessarily reflect those of the Company. to DeployedSoftwareSystem and making > > supplier and version optional on SoftwareSystem. > > > > (new issue to be raised) - add metamodel structuring > > guideline in section 6 (use of packages, <>s and > > compliance points) > > > > > > Pete Rivett (pete.rivett@adaptive.com) > > Chief Technology Officer, Adaptive Ltd > > Dean Park House, 8-10 Dean Park Crescent, Bournemouth, BH1 1HL, UK > > Tel: +44 (0)1202 449419 Fax: +44 (0)1202 449448 > > http://www.adaptive.com > > > > > > > > > The information contained in this email and any attached files are > confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). The > e-mail may be > legally privileged or prohibited from disclosure and unauthorised use. > > If you are not the named addressee you may not use, copy or > disclose this > information to any other person. If you received this > message in error > please notify the sender immediately. > > Any views or opinions presented here may be solely those of > the originator > and do not necessarily reflect those of the Company. > > > > > > The information contained in this email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). The e-mail may be legally privileged or prohibited from disclosure and unauthorised use. If you are not the named addressee you may not use, copy or disclose this information to any other person. If you received this message in error please notify the sender immediately. Any views or opinions presented here may be solely those of the originator and do not necessarily reflect those of the Company. From: "Pete Rivett" To: Subject: Teleconference to discuss issues CWM Issue 4518 - Logical-physical deployment modeling and 4482 - Optimize Instance data values Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 19:29:06 +0100 Message-ID: <004301c145ef$f6b175d0$a6a823d9@CHIMAY> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: 19M!!+i:!!(\a!!\Jc!! Due to looming deadlines I propose a teleconference to discuss these issues and address any questions about the resolutions: I suggest 1 pm Eastern Time on Thursday (immediately after the JOLAP teleconference). Here, for convenience, I include the clarifications and resolutions for these issues that I was actioned at Toronto to produce by end-September [note that there might be a short delay for the .zip file for 4518 to be posted]: ================ Issue 4482 Optimize Instance data values Summary: The Instances (hence MultiDimensional) metamodel is very wasteful in requiring a separate DataValue object for each simple string slot value: this in effect doubles the number of objects for value-oriented schemas such as Dimension definitions (in MultiDimensional where DataValue is inherited into MemberValue). This is a problem for XMI files and their processing, but even more so for repository implementations which tend to have management overheads associated with each object. Moreover these DataValue objects end up being directly contained in the MemberSet for the Dimension, which surely was not the intention. This means that when navigating from the Dimension to process its Members one also has to filter out a large number of these unwanted Data/MemberValue objects. Proposed resolution (see also http://cgi.omg.org/pub/cwm_rtf/InstancesIssue4482.zip (which contains both the Rose Instance.cat file and the Rose web published form). ------------------- a) Add new subclass of Slot called 'DataSlot' with description: "A Slot which is used to hold a data value where there is no need to manage the value as an element in its own right (in which case a DataValue would be used) - for example it is a one-off string value or a number." b) Add String attribute 'dataValue', description: "The value for the slot expressed as a string." c) Add reference 'dataType'[0..1] to DataType, description: "The type of the dataValue. If not set the type is taken as the type of the StructuralFeature associated with the DataSlot." d) Add constraint that DataSlot.value (reference inherited from Slot) must be empty. e) Update Figure 7-6-3 to change the 2 instances of Slot associated with the 'name' Attribute to be instances of DataSlot, delete the attached instances of DataValue, and attach the 'value=' strings directly to the DataSlots making them 'dataValue='. Rationale --------- This is intended to be a minimal-impact proposal that is incremental and does not impact existing implementations. It does not replace the existing DataValue class where there is the real need to have stand-alone managed data values (the equivalent of Constant in MOF and EnumerationLiteral in UML), but is for use where the values are pure one-off values for which the overhead of a separate ModelElement is not justified: for example most numeric and string values. The George and Martha example in Figure 7-6-3 illustrates the distinction: for the one-off names "George Washington" and "Martha Custis Washington" then the new DataSlot is used, but for the pseudo-enumeration values associated with the MaritalStatus attribute ("Married", "Widowed", "Divorced") then DataValue is still used: in particular because some of the values (e.g. "Divorced") are not yet associated with any actual Slot. ============= Issue 4518 ---------- DataManager contains a reference to the specific data (at the schema level) that is being managed but is constrained to be a DeployedComponent on a specific Machine. Though a DataManager refers to the Component that it 'instantiates' there is nothing associated with Component that allows one to record what data it can manage. For example, I would like to be able to create an element called "Peopleware Payroll Application" which references the relational schema for the application. This should be possible without having to say anything about its deployment onto specific machines. A separate but related point is the lack of support for linking deployed components to physical databases. The value of tracking this is for backup purposes etc, and the fact that actual WarehouseOperations will need to be applied to specific databases. Proposed resolution (see also http://cgi.omg.org/pub/cwm_rtf/DeploymentIssue4518.zip which will contain both the Rose SoftwareDeployment.cat file and the Rose web published form). ---------- a) Add new many-to-many Association ComponentDesign between Component and Package (with references designPackage and component). And description "This associates Components with the Packages containing its design. Typically this will reference the logical schema." b) Add new many-to-many recursive Association DeployedComponentUsage on DeployedComponent (with references usedComponents and usingComponents). And description "This links a DeployedComponent to the other DeployedComponents that it uses. Typically this might link a deployed application to the physical databases (instances of DataManager) that it accesses." c) Add a reference Component.deployment for the existing association to deployedComponent: this appears to be omitted for no obvious reason. Regards, Pete Pete Rivett (pete.rivett@adaptive.com) Chief Technology Officer, Adaptive Ltd Dean Park House, 8-10 Dean Park Crescent, Bournemouth, BH1 1HL, UK Tel: +44 (0)1202 449419 Fax: +44 (0)1202 449448 http://www.adaptive.com The information contained in this email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). The e-mail may be legally privileged or prohibited from disclosure and unauthorised use. If you are not the named addressee you may not use, copy or disclose this information to any other person. If you received this message in error please notify the sender immediately. Any views or opinions presented here may be solely those of the originator and do not necessarily reflect those of the Company. Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 18:49:50 +0000 From: David Mellor Organization: Oracle Corporation User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010726 Netscape6/6.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cwmrtf Subject: Re: Teleconference to discuss issues CWM Issue 4518 - Logical-physical deployment modeling and 4482 - Optimize Instance data values References: <004301c145ef$f6b175d0$a6a823d9@CHIMAY> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed X-UIDL: Gdj!!9'Z!!*oW!!fSfd9 All, I have looked at the changes proposed by Pete and feel we should consider them for the 1.1 submission. I think Pete's suggestion for a quick con call on Thurs. will help expedite the process and give people the chance to ask Pete for clarification (if necessary). We can then call for a vote at the end of the concall, folcon callp by an email vote. Dave M. Pete Rivett wrote: Due to looming deadlines I propose a teleconference to discuss these issues and address any questions about the resolutions: I suggest 1 pm Eastern Time on Thursday (immediately after the JOLAP teleconference). Here, for convenience, I include the clarifications and resolutions for these issues that I was actioned at Toronto to produce by end-September [note that there might be a short delay for the .zip file for 4518 to be posted]: ================ Issue 4482 Optimize Instance data values Summary: The Instances (hence MultiDimensional) metamodel is very wasteful in requiring a separate DataValue object for each simple string slot value: this in effect doubles the number of objects for value-oriented schemas such as Dimension definitions (in MultiDimensional where DataValue is inherited into MemberValue). This is a problem for XMI files and their processing, but even more so for repository implementations which tend to have management overheads associated with each object. Moreover these DataValue objects end up being directly contained in the MemberSet for the Dimension, which surely was not the intention. This means that when navigating from the Dimension to process its Members one also has to filter out a large number of these unwanted Data/MemberValue objects. Proposed resolution (see also http://cgi.omg.org/pub/cwm_rtf/InstancesIssue4482.zip (which contains both the Rose Instance.cat file and the Rose web published form). ------------------- a) Add new subclass of Slot called 'DataSlot' with description: "A Slot which is used to hold a data value where there is no need to manage the value as an element in its own right (in which case a DataValue would be used) - for example it is a one-off string value or a number." b) Add String attribute 'dataValue', description: "The value for the slot expressed as a string." c) Add reference 'dataType'[0..1] to DataType, description: "The type of the dataValue. If not set the type is taken as the type of the StructuralFeature associated with the DataSlot." d) Add constraint that DataSlot.value (reference inherited from Slot) must be empty. e) Update Figure 7-6-3 to change the 2 instances of Slot associated with the 'name' Attribute to be instances of DataSlot, delete the attached instances of DataValue, and attach the 'value=' strings directly to the DataSlots making them 'dataValue='. Rationale --------- This is intended to be a minimal-impact proposal that is incremental and does not impact existing implementations. It does not replace the existing DataValue class where there is the real need to have stand-alone managed data values (the equivalent of Constant in MOF and EnumerationLiteral in UML), but is for use where the values are pure one-off values for which the overhead of a separate ModelElement is not justified: for example most numeric and string values. The George and Martha example in Figure 7-6-3 illustrates the distinction: for the one-off names "George Washington" and "Martha Custis Washington" then the new DataSlot is used, but for the pseudo-enumeration values associated with the MaritalStatus attribute ("Married", "Widowed", "Divorced") then DataValue is still used: in particular because some of the values (e.g. "Divorced") are not yet associated with any actual Slot. ============= Issue 4518 ---------- DataManager contains a reference to the specific data (at the schema level) that is being managed but is constrained to be a DeployedComponent on a specific Machine. Though a DataManager refers to the Component that it 'instantiates' there is nothing associated with Component that allows one to record what data it can manage. For example, I would like to be able to create an element called "Peopleware Payroll Application" which references the relational schema for the application. This should be possible without having to say anything about its deployment onto specific machines. A separate but related point is the lack of support for linking deployed components to physical databases. The value of tracking this is for backup purposes etc, and the fact that actual WarehouseOperations will need to be applied to specific databases. Proposed resolution (see also http://cgi.omg.org/pub/cwm_rtf/DeploymentIssue4518.zip which will contain both the Rose SoftwareDeployment.cat file and the Rose web published form). ---------- a) Add new many-to-many Association ComponentDesign between Component and Package (with references designPackage and component). And description "This associates Components with the Packages containing its design. Typically this will reference the logical schema." b) Add new many-to-many recursive Association DeployedComponentUsage on DeployedComponent (with references usedComponents and usingComponents). And description "This links a DeployedComponent to the other DeployedComponents that it uses. Typically this might link a deployed application to the physical databases (instances of DataManager) that it accesses." c) Add a reference Component.deployment for the existing association to deployedComponent: this appears to be omitted for no obvious reason. Regards, Pete Pete Rivett (pete.rivett@adaptive.com) Chief Technology Officer, Adaptive Ltd Dean Park House, 8-10 Dean Park Crescent, Bournemouth, BH1 1HL, UK Tel: +44 (0)1202 449419 Fax: +44 (0)1202 449448 http://www.adaptive.com The information contained in this email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). The e-mail may be legally privileged or prohibited from disclosure and unauthorised use. If you are not the named addressee you may not use, copy or disclose this information to any other person. If you received this message in error please notify the sender immediately. Any views or opinions presented here may be solely those of the originator and do not necessarily reflect those of the Company. Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 19:26:10 +0000 From: David Mellor Organization: Oracle Corporation User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010726 Netscape6/6.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cwm-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Teleconference to discuss issues CWM Issue 4518 - Logical-physical deployment modeling and 4482 - Optimize Instance data values References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed X-UIDL: +@g!!>B8!! To: Cc: Subject: CWM Issue 4518 - Logical-physical deployment modeling Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 00:39:01 +0100 Message-ID: <002301c14488$ecbec1d0$1ea423d9@CHIMAY> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: ~b_d9lbQ!!I#h!!A=:e9 Status: RO >From the Toronto meeting I took an action to clarify the Issue (which I am entitled to make as the original raiser) and make a proposed resolution. Here it is. I have reflected these changes in a new softwaredeployment.cat which I can make available to whoever is building the master model. [Juergen could you please update the issues database] ------------- DataManager contains a reference to the specific data (at the schema level) that is being managed but is constrained to be a DeployedComponent on a specific Machine. Though a DataManager refers to the Component that it 'instantiates' there is nothing associated with Component that allows one to record what data it can manage. For example, I would like to be able to create an element called "Peopleware Payroll Application" which references the relational schema for the application. This should be possible without having to say anything about its deployment onto specific machines. A separate but related point is the lack of support for linking deployed components to physical databases. The value of tracking this is for backup purposes etc, and the fact that actual WarehouseOperations will need to be applied to specific databases. Proposed resolution a) Add new many-to-many Association ComponentDesign between Component and Package (with references designPackage and component). And description "This associates Components with the Packages containing its design. Typically this will reference the logical schema." b) Add new many-to-many recursive Association DeployedComponentUsage on DeployedComponent (with references usedComponents and usingComponents). And description "This links a DeployedComponent to the other DeployedComponents that it uses. Typically this might link a deployed application to the physical databases (instances of DataManager) that it accesses." c) Add a reference Component.deployment for the existing association to deployedComponent: this appears to be omitted for no obvious reason. Pete Pete Rivett (pete.rivett@adaptive.com) Chief Technology Officer, Adaptive Ltd Dean Park House, 8-10 Dean Park Crescent, Bournemouth, BH1 1HL, UK Tel: +44 (0)1202 449419 Fax: +44 (0)1202 449448 http://www.adaptive.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Pete Rivett [mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com] > Sent: 14 September 2001 16:10 > To: 'cwm-rtf@omg.org' > Subject: Outcome of RTF discussions at Toronto > > > The following is a list of the issues that, in addition to > those which were on the RTF agenda, were agreed to be > candidates for CWM 1.1. Where further actions are needed (see > below) a timebox approach will be taken to maintain the RTF > completion date. > > 4482 - optimize data values - action Pete to revise proposal > with examples to address the concerns discussed at the meeting > 4518 - logical-physical - genuine issue (deployed component > to deployed component, component to package), action Pete to > revise proposal > 4519 - process-physical - the requirement can likely be met > with the existing model: action Dan to provide sample > interchange format to show how a logical transformation can > be applied to a specific physical source for a specific process. > > 4509 - use of MOF 1.4 - action Pete to quantify impact of new > MOF datatype model. Benefit is ability to use JMI. > > 4467 - XML Schema: we will timebox this and only include if > Dan can propose complete Rose model by end Sept. > > 4475 - att.initialvalue mandatory - just do it > 4405 - wrong extra dependency arrow - just do it > 4469 - missing letters on diagrams - just do it > 4514 - supplier and version: just propose adding string > attribute fixLevel Subject: Issue 4518 To: "Pete Rivett" Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.7 March 21, 2001 Message-ID: From: "Dan Chang" Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:04:37 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM069/03/M/IBM(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 09/25/2001 05:04:38 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: W'Be99oU!!&mgd9D=0e9 Pete, I suggest that the proposed resolution be revised as follows: a) ... (with reference designPackage). ... c) removed Raitonale: a) Package should not be required to know about Component. The reference component would require that. c) Component should not be required to know about DeployedComponent. The deployment reference would require that. Regards, Dan Metadata Management Technology and Standard IBM DBTI for e-Business Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG) Phone: (408)-463-2319 Subject: Call for Vote on Issue 4518 To: cwm-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.7 March 21, 2001 Message-ID: From: "Dan Chang" Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 13:03:00 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM069/03/M/IBM(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 09/27/2001 02:03:03 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: f`ld9>13e980T!!:$Fe9 Team, The following is a call for vote on Issue 4518 whose proposed resolution was agreed upon by all participants of this morning's telecon. For those of you who are voting members of the CWM RTF, please vote early. Regards, Dan CALL FOR VOTE: --------------------------- This e-mail is a call for vote for Issue 4518. Vote starts on September 28, 2001. Vote ends on October 2, 2001. Please vote YES, NO or ABSTAIN on accepting the proposed resolution for this issue. Issue 4518 ---------- DataManager contains a reference to the specific data (at the schema level) that is being managed but is constrained to be a DeployedComponent on a specific Machine. Though a DataManager refers to the Component that it 'instantiates' there is nothing associated with Component that allows one to record what data it can manage. For example, I would like to be able to create an element called "Peopleware Payroll Application" which references the relational schema for the application. This should be possible without having to say anything about its deployment onto specific machines. A separate but related point is the lack of support for linking deployed components to physical databases. The value of tracking this is for backup purposes etc, and the fact that actual WarehouseOperations will need to be applied to specific databases. Proposed resolution (see also http://cgi.omg.org/pub/cwm_rtf/DeploymentIssue4518.zip which contains both the Rose SoftwareDeployment.cat file and the Rose web published form but incorrectly contains a superfluous reference Component.deployment which should be ignored). ---------- a) Add new many-to-many Association ComponentDesign between Component and Package (with one reference Component.designPackage). And description "This associates Components with the Packages containing its design. Typically this will reference the logical schema." b) Add new many-to-many recursive Association DeployedComponentUsage on DeployedComponent (with references usedComponents and usingComponents). And description "This links a DeployedComponent to the other DeployedComponents that it uses. Typically this might link a deployed application to the physical databases (instances of DataManager) that it accesses."