All, My 2 cents. It really is becoming imperative to agree on ONAP terminology. During today's CIM WS presentation from John Strassner, it became obvious that how we define the ONAP information model is dependent on terminology. We can have 10 different IMs and all of them may be right in the context of their terminology, but completely wrong when we use terminology from somewhere else. The term "network function" was the best example. We could iterate for a very long time on IM if we do not first agree on the ONAP terminology - and a term cannot be all things, especially if we want to reconcile ONAP IM with other IMs.
Regards, Michael On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:22 PM, denghui (L) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello all > > > > There is a small change to let Kevin present first about IM then let SDO > to discuss it later. > > https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/ONAP+Modeling+Workshop+Program > > > > Thanks a lot > > > > DENG Hui > > _______________________________________________ > onap-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss > > -- Michael Brenner, Chief Architect NFV ------------------------------ M: +1-732-895-5772 http://getcloudify.org <http://getcloudify.org?utm_source=signaturesatori&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Cloudify%204.0%20Webinar> @cloudifysource <https://twitter.com/CloudifySource> <https://www.linkedin.com/company-beta/17918192/> <https://github.com/cloudify-cosmo> <https://www.youtube.com/cloudifysource> <http://getcloudify.org/webinars/the-new-cloudify-4.html?utm_source=signaturesatori&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Cloudify%204.0%20Webinar>
_______________________________________________ onap-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss
