I agree with this. Maybe we could consider the modeling from the perspective of the micro-service principle. The orchestrator is responsible for the execution of the workflow model(such as BPMN), and the controllers are charge of the execution of the configuration model(such as YANG). So in my opinion the modeling languages, which are suitable for the implementation of the orchestrator or the controllers respectively, are the best for ONAP now. In the future, if there is another better modeling language, the orchestrator or the controllers will autonomously evolve to a new version which adopt the new workflow or configuration modeling languages. The influence of the evolvement will be controllable.
Best Regards, Xiaojun ???? Ed Warnicke ????? 2017-04-25 07:47 ???? Michael Brenner ??? onap-discuss ??? Re: [onap-discuss][onap-tsc] ???Re: Modelling discussion on Friday May 5th I strongly second this. My experience is that there is a huge service for the good modelers who engage with the community to do incredible good... but modeling in a vacuum, away from the implementation, and then just expecting the implementers to follow directions works poorly. I'd say that a far better activity for the long term health would be to plug good model people into the places in the community where models are in progress. Their wisdom as participants can be huge, but they need to *participate*, not work off in a tower of UML. Ed On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Michael Brenner <michael at gigaspaces.com> wrote: ... on the other hand, what does one do with a smooth cohesive model, if you can't easily translate it to a data model? Without any intent to dive into a debate about whether the example is right or not ... we have an ETSI NFV VNF UML model ... and we cannot translate it into any data model - it takes manual work. The other issue is sort of the reverse - i.e. you don't actually KNOW that the UML model is right, until you implement it. And it is difficult to implement it, when you don't have the automatic translation tools. So you end up building an ideal model, but you don't know if it works ... until you have the right translation tools. How long is one to wait ... instead of implementing and iterating? Like with any other project, it really comes down to a schedule, and knowing what you want to achieve within that schedule. Best, Michael On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Brian Hedstrom <brian.hedstrom at oamtechnologies.com> wrote: 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 <[email protected]> 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 oamtechnologies.com> wrote: The way to put all these different data models under a single umbrella is to create a UML 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, 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:[email protected]] 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.onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Dtsc&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=2dwD7a5k4V9cZl09O7uTpejnZMF8aa01W3yMqrrZC5Y&m=HRoKLiOZCWLzl3Z-00DLQIUCwCAWqQL50mUFHtfYXYA&s=731fuCUnXbuPSOGHEcVf4U29cHpOGPKmwevRHGAoeiY&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 _______________________________________________ onap-discuss mailing list onap-discuss at lists.onap.org https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.onap.org/pipermail/onap-discuss/attachments/20170425/34620692/attachment.html>
