[occi-wg] Resource Types: Compute / Network / Storage

Alexis Richardson alexis.richardson at gmail.com
Sun Apr 19 15:02:03 CDT 2009


I think your diagram shows the three *service* layers that Simon also
distinguishes.  The 'client' and 'server' layers are context.  You
could IFF you wanted to make two cosmetic changes to reflect Simon's
concern: (a) add 'services' to each layer heading (eg "Infrastructure
Services", "Platform Services"); (b) grey out the top and bottom a bit
(client and server).


You are right that any layer can have a client; that is consistent
with the diagram IMO.


On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net> wrote:
> Simon,
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 9:39 PM, Simon Wardley <simon.wardley at canonical.com>
> wrote:
>> I'd strongly advise you to drop the client / server aspect and in
>> particular remove the sub-tags such as components / services.
>> Don't assume that an application won't be used as a component in a mash
>> up or used as a service to build another application etc. Also platforms
>> (i.e. GAE) have user interfaces ... you're going to get into all sorts
>> of confusion.
>> Keep it really simple - Application / Platform  / Infrastructure.
> Unfortunately by doing so your taxonomy no longer functions as a taxonomy -
> important components are left unclassified (or worse, inappropriately
> classified), including client operating systems (like Android, gOS/Cloud),
> hardware (netbooks, nettops) and next-gen browsers (chrome) as well as
> underlying hardware like cisco's unified [fabric] computing gear. "no junk"
> doesn't imply "no complexity" and here I think we've got just enough. FYI
> the process of generating the last stack involved classifying everything
> cloud-related I could find afterwards and I'll do the same now when I find a
> spare moment.
> The observation that an application can feed another is exactly the thing
> that wrecked my head with the service layer - and a large part of the reason
> it was dropped. Trying to represent that an application can also serve as
> part of a platform results in both junk and confusion.
> I'm hoping that by covering everything concisely as we have here the result
> won't be rejected as "too simplistic". If however it makes sense to boil it
> down further for your particular application then go right ahead.
> Sam
>> On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 20:32 +0100, Alexis Richardson wrote:
>> > Unfortunately 'application layer' in the OSI case could cover Platform
>> > in our case.
>> >
>> > Nevertheless, I think your diagram is fine.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net> wrote:
>> > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Alexis Richardson
>> > > <alexis.richardson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks Sam.  That is great.
>> > >>
>> > >> To borrow a phrase: "No junk, no confusion".

More information about the occi-wg mailing list