While the tools are maturing and advancing, if we choose to close that door now, there's no cohesive UML Common Information Model for ONAP. Consequently, we would lack a protocol agnostic information model and when the next cool data modeling language or encoding scheme comes out, we have to start again with working backward. Another key benefit is that UML is much easier to comprehend due to it's graphical diagram nature, versus needing to understand a data modeling language and/or data encoding mechanism. Consensus can be made on class diagrams for example, then translation to a data modeling language can be easily done by hand or by the emerging tools (see my previous email with the links).
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Michael Brenner <michael at gigaspaces.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I actually tend to agree with Ed. While it may be an ideal approach in > theory, tools for automatic generation from UML to Yang, or other modeling > languages for that matter are improving, they are still too far from > perfect, and require a lot of hand-holding so-to-speak, and as a result - > too many headaches. We may be mired in tool debugging, instead on > progressing on ONAP. > > Michael > > *From: *Ash Young <ash at yunify.org> > *Subject: **Re: [onap-discuss] [onap-tsc] ???Re: Modelling discussion on > Friday May 5th* > *Date: *April 24, 2017 at 10:09:22 AM PDT > *To: *Ed Warnicke <hagbard at gmail.com>, Brian Hedstrom < > brian.hedstrom at oamtechnologies.com> > *Cc: *"JANA, RITTWIK \(RITTWIK\)" <rjana at research.att.com>, onap-discuss < > onap-discuss at lists.onap.org>, onap-tsc <onap-tsc at lists.onap.org> > > I'm actually in agreement with Brian on approach and tool. So much work > has been going on here that I really don't want to see us go backwards by > thinking Yang solves everything. > > Ash > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 24, 2017, at 12:01, Ed Warnicke <hagbard at gmail.com> wrote: > > I love UML in a variety of contexts, but for expressing things that are > destined to be expressed in yang, or for creating things to be rendered to > yang, in my experience its been a very poor fit. > > Ed > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Brian Hedstrom <brian.hedstrom at oamte > chnologies.com> wrote: > >> The way to put all these different data models under a single umbrella is >> to create a UML <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Modeling_Language> >> Information >> Model using Eclipse/Papyrus (as an open source tool). >> Unified Modeling Language (UML) is a standard syntax for describing the >> architectural design of a system >> >> - Object Management Group (OMG) & ISO standard >> - Originated from object-oriented software development methods >> >> UML includes many diagrams types to graphically represent parts of a >> system?s model, including >> >> - Structural Views: The static nature of the system using objects, >> attributes and relationships (e.g., information or components that must be >> present in the system). This includes class diagrams and component >> diagrams. >> - Behavioral: The dynamic nature of the system through collaboration >> of objects and state changes (e.g., activities performed by the system). >> This includes use case diagrams, sequence diagrams, state machines. >> >> UML is protocol agnostic and therefore these "Information Models" are >> protocol agnostic. >> >> UML models can then be transformed into protocol specific data models >> such as YANG, XML, SMIv2, etc. >> >> Creating a UML Information Model allows data cohesion across the various >> interfaces in the system. Using Interface Realizations >> <http://www.uml-diagrams.org/realization.html>, specific interfaces can >> be modeled. In fact, an interface Information Model could be transformed >> into multiple data models to support multiple management protocols. >> >> Therefore, the focus first is on building a UML Information Model, then >> once that's approved by the organization, then data models and encodings >> can be generated based on the chosen interface protocols. >> >> Thanks, >> Brian >> >> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 5:13 AM, <zhao.huabing at zte.com.cn> wrote: >> >>> Hi Brijesh, >>> >>> You brought up a great topic, we may need to converge at the same >>> aspect, but for different aspects, there are different modelling languages >>> which can better meet the specific requirement of that aspect, and they are >>> very complementary. >>> >>> For example, TOSCA(Heat is another, come with openstack) is a good >>> choice for the topology modelling of cloud application , YANG can be used >>> for the configuration model( normally using for L2 L3, can be used for >>> L4-L7 as well), and BPMN is good at workflow orchestration. >>> >>> It's difficult to put all these different modelling capabilities in a >>> single data model or using an unique DSL, and we don't need to. But It's >>> possible to make them work together smoothly under a unified umbrella >>> system to accomplish the automated close loop and I'm glad to see ONAP has >>> already make a very good start at that job. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Huabing >>> >>> ???? >>> *???:* BrijeshKhandelwal; >>> *???:*GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E); denghui (L); JANA,RITTWIK (RITTWIK); >>> onap-discuss at lists.onap.org; onap-tsc at lists.onap.org; >>> *??:* 2017-04-22 11:56:56 >>> *??:Re: [onap-discuss] [onap-tsc] Modelling discussion on Friday May 5th* >>> >>> Greetings, >>> >>> >>> >>> Adding some thoughts on information model: >>> >>> Orchestration need to interoperate among different interfaces, which in >>> turn need to deal with very different payloads in form of YAML, YANG, JSON >>> etc. There will be lots of data processing among these models to process >>> complete service. Handling these templates in orchestrator will impose >>> limitations on capability and performance of orchestrator. >>> >>> So, there should have standardized data model for smooth processing >>> among orchestration steps. >>> >>> >>> >>> Probably first time, orchestration is composing 3 different worlds of >>> Network, Infra, IT, with different tunes of YANG, YAML, JSON/XML. >>> >>> Is there a play to develop standardized data models for orchestration, >>> which will meet needs of each area? Is TOSCA sufficient? Or need some >>> extended JSON data models? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -Brijesh >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* onap-tsc-bounces at lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc- >>> bounces at lists.onap.org] *On Behalf Of *GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E) >>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 20, 2017 8:30 AM >>> *To:* denghui (L); JANA, RITTWIK (RITTWIK) >>> *Cc:* onap-discuss at lists.onap.org; onap-tsc at lists.onap.org >>> *Subject:* Re: [onap-tsc] Modelling discussion on Friday May 5th >>> >>> >>> >>> Rittwik, Deng, >>> >>> >>> >>> This is great. Thank you for taking the lead. >>> >>> >>> >>> I realize the focus is on TOSCA and parsers. Wonderful! >>> >>> I want to take you one level higher to start by discussing >>> >>> what the framework look like for the information model. Perhaps invite >>> folks who have >>> >>> operational experience. Then start describing the differernt >>> >>> data models and how TOSCA plays a role in driving service chaining and >>> micro services >>> >>> (like analytics, data collections, etc). >>> >>> >>> >>> It would be great if the outcome of this mini session to >>> >>> be a recommendation position/paper or a proposal for a project. >>> >>> >>> >>> Mazin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 20, 2017, at 4:34 AM, denghui (L) <denghui12 at huawei.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hello all >>> >>> >>> >>> We are happy to let you know that we are hosting a modeling session on >>> Friday, May 5th, AT&T Lab. >>> >>> 9:00-10:30 Shitao moderate: TOSCA NFV Profile >>> >>> 10:30-12:00 Rittwik moderate: AT&T Parser >>> >>> 13:30-16:00 DengHui moderate: Modelling & Opendeployment >>> >>> >>> >>> Please kindly help to let us know if you are interested in joining us, >>> so that we can book a proper meeting room for our discussion >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Rittwik & DENG Hui >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ONAP-TSC mailing list >>> ONAP-TSC at lists.onap.org >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.o >>> nap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Dtsc&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeM >>> TSQicvjIg&r=2dwD7a5k4V9cZl09O7uTpejnZMF8aa01W3yMqrrZC5Y&m=HR >>> oKLiOZCWLzl3Z-00DLQIUCwCAWqQL50mUFHtfYXYA&s=731fuCUnXbuPSOGH >>> EcVf4U29cHpOGPKmwevRHGAoeiY&e= >>> >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> ================================================================ >>> >>> Disclaimer: This message and the information contained herein is >>> proprietary and confidential and subject to the Tech Mahindra policy >>> statement, you may review the policy at http://www.techmahindra. >>> com/Disclaimer.html externally http://tim.techmahindra.com/tim/ >>> disclaimer.html internally within TechMahindra. >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> ================================================================ >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ONAP-TSC mailing list >>> ONAP-TSC at lists.onap.org >>> https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > onap-discuss mailing list > onap-discuss at lists.onap.org > https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss > > -- Brian Hedstrom Founder/CEO OAM Technology Consulting LLC oamtechnologyconsulting.com brian.hedstrom at oamtechnologies.com 720-470-7091 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.onap.org/pipermail/onap-discuss/attachments/20170424/e7b02830/attachment.html>
