Hi Rick,
About this PrinterComponent usage - NONE of our association MOFs use
the PrinterComponent association - they ALL use CIM_Dependency (which
is correct CIM usage). Only the CIM_Printer to subunit association would be
affected. That is, CIM_AssociatedMediaPath has nothing to do with
PrinterComponent - it references PrinterElement (the data class) via
CIM_PrintMediaPath.
Choosing only the mandatory subunits is a slippery slope - it means that
a Printer MIB v3 can't make more subunits mandatory (which is indeed
plausible) and be easily reflected in the CIM model.
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wims at pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims at pwg.org]On Behalf Of Richard_Landau at Dell.com
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 5:34 PM
To: wims at pwg.org
Subject: WIMS> CIM> Status of CRs in Core: passed. And new news.
The two CRs that were balloted this week, AssociatedPrintOutputTray and AssociatedPrintMediaPath, will be forwarded to TC. Yay.
There was a question about cardinality. I conferred with Ira and responded that the relationships between Finisher and MediaPath (and OutputTray) are many-to-many, so cardinality need not be specified. I updated the two CRs with the issue and response, resubmitted them to DMTF, and reposted them to the WIMS-CIM FTP site.
Also, he (Crandall) did not understand that Finisher is optional while MediaPath and OutputTray are mandatory. We perhaps did not make that sufficiently explicit in the modeling, and he thinks we should. The Visio diagram is clear about cardinalities, but we should make it clearer in the association MOFs that some components are required and others are optional.
For example, we should add MIN(1) to the CIM_PrinterComponent association and then use that for only the mandatory subunits. For the optional subunits (Interlock, Finisher, ConsoleLight, Supply), we can use simply CIM_Component.
And he asked why we are doing these specific associations at all if they do not contain any additional semantics. He feels that we could use plain old CIM_Dependency (from which these two are subclassed) if there is no additional information: no new properties, no new cardinality restrictions. (Yes, eventually, we will learn all the rules.) If we wish, we can withdraw these anytime before they are voted on in TC; we have at least a week to decide. My thought: sure, why not. If we don't need more specific classes, let's not define them. I will be happy to redraw the class diagram.
rick
----------------------
Richard_Landau(at)dell(dot)com, Stds & System Mgt Architecture, CTO Office
+1-512-728-9023, One Dell Way, RR5-3, MS RR5-09, Round Rock, TX 78682
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.0/961 - Release Date: 8/19/2007 7:27 AM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/wims/attachments/20070819/4d0b397f/attachment.html