Another approach would be to define a special property (e.g. crtv:clusterType) which can be used as an identifying property, rather than rdf:type.
If we try to use rdf:type as an identifying property and these resources all have rdf:type Cluster, then they will reconcile even if they have other subtype rdf:type values that are different. Joe ================================================ Joe Ross/Austin/IBM, [email protected] Jazz for Service Management 512-286-8311, T/L 363-8311 ----- Forwarded by Joe Ross/Austin/IBM on 09/03/2013 09:10 AM ----- From: Joe Ross/Austin/IBM To: Janet Andersen/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Cc: [email protected], Oslc-Recon <[email protected]>, Tuan Dang/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS Date: 09/03/2013 09:08 AM Subject: Re: [Oslc-recon] Proposed addition to the specification for representation and reconciliation of clusters I think that just means that the crtv type should be the subtype, rather then Cluster, and the identification rule should be defined for each subtype. Joe ================================================ Joe Ross/Austin/IBM, [email protected] Jazz for Service Management 512-286-8311, T/L 363-8311 From: Janet Andersen/Raleigh/IBM To: Joe Ross/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Cc: [email protected], Oslc-Recon <[email protected]>, Tuan Dang/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS Date: 09/03/2013 09:03 AM Subject: Re: [Oslc-recon] Proposed addition to the specification for representation and reconciliation of clusters I think crtv:name will not be sufficient to uniquely identify a cluster when there are different types of clusters in the environment. Some clusters (e.g. Microsoft Server Clusters) have user-defined cluster names and, if administrators across different cluster types do not coordinate their naming conventions, there could be conflicts if the same user-defined name is chosen. Therefore, it may be best to use a combination of crtv:name and a subtype for the naming rule. Thanks! Janet S. Andersen IBM Tivoli Monitoring Research Triangle Park, NC Phone: 919-224-1440, T/L 8-687-1440 Internet: [email protected] From: Joe Ross/Austin/IBM@IBMUS To: Tuan Dang/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS Cc: Oslc-Recon <[email protected]>, [email protected] Date: 08/31/2013 09:26 AM Subject: Re: [Oslc-recon] Proposed addition to the specification for representation and reconciliation of clusters Sent by: "Oslc-Recon" <[email protected]> I think that a crtv:Cluster type makes sense, since this is itself an IT resource, not just an arbitrary grouping of resources. crtv:name seems like a good identifying property. Subtypes might make sense if different identifying propertes are needed for different subtypes or if the same name can exist in different clusters of different types. Reuse of rdfs:member for cluster members makes sense, although, I don't really see the need for the rdfs:Container rdf:type, since crtv:Cluster itself is presumably defined as making use of the rdfs:member property. As I mentioned above, these are real-world IT resources and not arbitrary groupings. ================================================ Joe Ross/Austin/IBM, [email protected] Jazz for Service Management 512-286-8311, T/L 363-8311 Inactive hide details for Tuan Dang---08/30/2013 02:16:36 PM---Hello all, Various IBM product development teams are implementinTuan Dang---08/30/2013 02:16:36 PM---Hello all, Various IBM product development teams are implementing the Reconciliation From: Tuan Dang/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS To: [email protected], Date: 08/30/2013 02:16 PM Subject: [Oslc-recon] Proposed addition to the specification for representation and reconciliation of clusters Sent by: "Oslc-Recon" <[email protected]> Hello all, Various IBM product development teams are implementing the Reconciliation spec and would like to represent the concept of "Cluster". Concrete examples being the machines in a failover/load balancing group, a set of application servers or even more generically, a group of resources as defined by a user. The use case is that service provider would advertise its knowledge of a cluster and its members and clients would query for provider specific data or issue commands against that cluster. Multiple service providers could know about this cluster and we would also need to discuss rules for reconciling cluster instances coming from multiple sources. Internally, IBM is using rdfs:Container and rdfs:member to represent a group of systems but also wants to indicate that this is a cluster in the IT specific sense. The proposal is to add to CRTV the resource type http://open-services.net/ns/crtv#Cluster with description "A set of connected systems (either physical or logical) that work together such that the set can be viewed as a single system" We'll also need to discuss whether we should be even more specific and create resource types for example crtv#MicrosoftFailoverCluster or crtv#ZsystemCICSPlex For reconciliation, we need a way to determine if Cluster1 from service provider 1 is the same object as Cluster2 from service provider 2. We could posit that if Cluster1.crtv#name is the same as Cluster2.crtv#name then Cluster1 and Cluster represent the same object. Any other potential rules ? Thanks ! T Tuan Dang CS&I Integration Scenarios and OSLC Reconciliation workgroup lead Internet: [email protected] phone: (919) 224-1242 T/L 687-1242 _______________________________________________ Oslc-Recon mailing list [email protected] http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-recon_open-services.net _______________________________________________ Oslc-Recon mailing list [email protected] http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-recon_open-services.net
