William Vambenepe's blog

Then: Web services standards

One of the most frustrating aspects of how Web services standards shot themselves in the foot via unchecked complexity is that plenty of people were pointing out the problem as it happened. Mark Baker (to whom I noticed Don Box also paid tribute recently) is the poster child. I remember Tom Jordahl tirelessly arguing for keeping it simple in the WSDL working group. Amberpoint’s Fred Carter did it in WSDM (in the post announcing the recent Amberpoint acquisition, I mentioned that “their engineers brought to the [WSDM] group a unique level of experience and practical-mindedness” but I could have added “… which we, the large companies, mostly ignored.”)

The commonality between all these voices is that they didn’t come from the large companies. Instead they came from the “specialists” (independent contractors and representatives from small, specialized companies). Many of the WS-* debates were fought along alliance lines. Depending on the season it could be “IBM vs. Microsoft”, “IBM+Microsoft vs. Oracle”, “IBM+HP vs. Microsoft+Intel”, etc… They’d battle over one another’s proposal but tacitly agreed to brush off proposals from the smaller players. At least if they contained anything radically different from the content of the submission by the large companies. And simplicity is radical.

Now: Cloud standards

I do not reminisce about the WS-* standards wars just for old time sake or the joy of self-flagellation. I also hope that the current (and very important) wave of standards, related to all things Cloud, can do better than the Web services wave did with regards to involving on-the-ground experts.

Even though I still work for a large company, I’d like to see this fixed for Cloud standards. Not because I am a good guy (though I hope I am), but because I now realize that in the long run this lack of perspective even hurts the large companies themselves. We (and that includes IBM and Microsoft, the ringleaders of the WS-* effort) would be better off now if we had paid more attention then.

Here are two reasons why the necessity to involve and include specialists is even more applicable to Cloud standards than Web services.

First, there are many more individuals (or small companies) today with a lot of practical Cloud experience than there were small players with practical Web services experience when the WS-* standardization started (Shlomo Swidler, Mitch Garnaat, Randy Bias, John M. Willis, Sam Johnston, David Kavanagh, Adrian Cole, Edward M. Goldberg, Eric Hammond, Thorsten von Eicken and Guy Rosen come to mind, though this is nowhere near an exhaustive list). Which means there is even more to gain by ensuring that the Cloud standard process is open to them, should they choose to engage in some form.

Second, there is a transparency problem much larger than with Web services standards. For all their flaws, W3C and OASIS, where most of the WS-* work took place, are relatively transparent. Their processes and IP policies are clear and, most importantly, their mailing list archives are open to the public. DMTF, where VMWare, Fujitsu and others have submitted Cloud specifications, is at the other hand of the transparency spectrum. A few examples of what I mean by that:

• I can tell you that VMWare and Fujitsu submitted specifications to DMTF, because the two companies each issued a press release to announce it. I can’t tell you which others did (and you can’t read their submissions) because these companies didn’t think it worthy of a press release. And DMTF keeps the submission confidential. That’s why I blogged about the vCloud submission and the Fujitsu submission but couldn’t provide equivalent analysis for the others.
• The mailing lists of DMTF working groups are confidential. Even a DMTF member cannot see the message archive of a group unless he/she is a member of that specific group. The general public cannot see anything at all. And unless I missed it on the site, they cannot even know what DMTF working groups exist. It makes you wonder whether Dick Cheney decided to call his social club of energy company executives a “Task Force” because he was inspired by the secrecy of the DMTF (“Distributed Management Task Force”). Even when the work is finished and the standard published, the DMTF won’t release the mailing list archive, even though these discussions can be a great reference for people who later use the specification.
• Working documents are also confidential. Working groups can decide to publish some intermediate work, but this needs to be an explicit decision of the group, then approved by its parent group, and in practice it happens rarely (mileage varies depending on the groups).
• Even when a document is published, the process to provide feedback from the outside seems designed to thwart any attempt. Or at least that’s what it does in practice. Having blogged a fair amount on technical details of two DMTF standards (CMDBf and WS-Management) I often get questions and comments about these specifications from readers. I encourage them to bring their comments to the group and point them to the official feedback page. Not once have I, as a working group participant, seen the comments come out on the other end of the process.

So let’s recap. People outside of DMTF don’t know what work is going on (even if they happen to know that a working group called “Cloud this” or “Cloud that” has been started, the charter documents and therefore the precise scope and list of deliverables are also confidential). Even if they knew, they couldn’t get to see the work. And even if they did, there is no convenient way for them to provide feedback (which would probably arrive too late anyway). And joining the organization would be quite a selfless act because they then have to pay for the privilege of sharing their expertise while not being included in the real deciding circles anyway (unless there are ready to pony up for the top membership levels). That’s because of the unclear and unstable processes as well as the inordinate influence of board members and officers who all are also company representatives (in W3C, the strong staff balances the influence of the sponsors, in OASIS the bylaws limit arbitrariness by the board members).

What we are missing out on

Many in the standards community have heard me rant on this topic before. What pushed me over the edge and motivated me to write this entry was stumbling on a crystal clear illustration of what we are missing out on. I submit to you this post by Adrian Cole and the follow-up (twice)by Thorsten von Eicken. After spending two days at a face to face meeting of the DMTF Cloud incubator (in an undisclosed location) this week, I’ll just say that these posts illustrate a level of practically and a grounding in real-life Cloud usage that was not evident in all the discussions of the incubator. You don’t see Adrian and Thorsten arguing about the meaning of the word “infrastructure”, do you? I’d love to point you to the DMTF meeting minutes so you can judge for yourself, but by now you should understand why I can’t.

So instead of helping in the forum where big vendors submit their specifications, the specialists (some of them at least) go work in OGF, and produce OCCI (here is the mailing list archive). When Thorsten von Eicken blogs about his experience using Cloud APIs, they welcome the feedback and engage him to look at their work. The OCCI work is nice, but my concern is that we are now going to end up with at least two sets of standard specifications (in addition to the multitude of company-controlled specifications, like the ubiquitous EC2 API). One from the big companies and one from the specialists. And if you think that the simplest, clearest and most practical one will automatically win, well I envy your optimism. Up to a point. I don’t know if one specification will crush the other, if we’ll have a “reconciliation” process, if one is going to be used in “private Clouds” and the other in “public Clouds” or if the conflict will just make both mostly irrelevant. What I do know is that this is not what I want to see happen. Rather, the big vendors (whose imprimatur is needed) and the specialists (whose experience is indispensable) should work together to make the standard technically practical and widely adopted. I don’t care where it happens. I don’t know whether now is the right time or too early. I just know that when the time comes it needs to be done right. And I don’t like the way it’s shaping up at the moment. Well-meaning but toothless efforts like cloud-standards.org don’t make me feel better.

I know this blog post will be read both by my friends in DMTF and by my friends in Clouderati. I just want them to meet. That could be quite a party.

IBM was on to something when it produced this standards participation policy (which I commented on in a cynical-yet-supportive way – and yes I realize the same cynicism can apply to me). But I haven’t heard of any practical effect of this policy change. Has anyone seen any? Isn’t the Cloud standard wave the right time to translate it into action?

Transparency first

I realize that it takes more than transparency to convince specialists to take a look at what a working group is doing and share their thoughts. Even in a fully transparent situation, specialists will eventually give up if they are stonewalled by process lawyers or just ignored and marginalized (many working group participants have little bandwidth and typically take their cues from the big vendors even in the absence of explicit corporate alignment). And this is hard to fix. Processes serve a purpose. While they can be used against the smaller players, they also in many cases protect them. Plus, for every enlightened specialist who gets discouraged, there is a nutcase who gets neutralized by the need to put up a clear proposal and follow a process. I don’t see a good way to prevent large vendors from using the process to pressure smaller ones if that’s what they intend to do. Let’s at least prevent this from happening unintentionally. Maybe some of my colleagues  from large companies will also ask themselves whether it wouldn’t be to their own benefit to actually help qualified specialists to contribute. Some “positive discrimination” might be in order, to lighten the process burden in some way for those with practical expertise, limited resources, and the willingness to offer some could-otherwise-be-billable hours.

In any case, improving transparency is the simplest, fastest and most obvious step that needs to be taken. Not doing it because it won’t solve everything is like not doing CPR on someone on the pretext that it would only restart his heart but not cure his rheumatism.

What’s at risk if we fail to leverage the huge amount of practical Cloud expertise from smaller players in the standards work? Nothing less than an unpractical set of specifications that will fail to realize the promises of Cloud interoperability. And quite possibly even delay them. We’ve seen it before, haven’t we?

Notice how I haven’t mentioned customers? It’s a typical “feel-good” line in every lament about standards to say that “we need more customer involvement”. It’s true, but the lament is old and hasn’t, in my experience, solved anything. And today’s economical climate makes me even more dubious that direct customer involvement is going to keep us on track for this standardization wave (though I’d love to be proven wrong). Opening the door to on-the-ground-working-with-customers experts with a very neutral and pragmatic perspective has a better chance of success in my mind.

As a point of clarification, I am not asking large companies to pick a few small companies out of their partner ecosystem and give them a 10% discount on their alliance membership fee in exchange for showing up in the standards groups and supporting their friendly sponsor. This is a common trick, used to pack a committee, get the votes and create an impression of overwhelming industry support. Nobody should pick who the specialists are. We should do all we can to encourage them to come. It will be pretty clear who they are when they start to ask pointed questions about the work.

Finally, from the archives, a more humorous look at how various standards bodies compare. And the proof that my complaints about DMTF secrecy aren’t new.

Yet another cloud standards organization effort. This one is better than the others because it has the best domain name.

A press release to announce a Wiki. Sure. Whatever. Electrons are cheap.

Cynicism aside, it can’t hurt. But what would be really useful is if all these working groups opened up their mailing list archives and document repositories so that the Wiki can be a launching pad to actual content rather than a set of one-line descriptions of what each group is supposed to work on. With useful direct links to the most recent drafts and lists of issues under consideration. Similar to the home page of a W3C working group, but across groups. Let’s hope this is a first step in that direction.

I am also interested in where they’ll draw the line between Cloud computing and IT management. If such a line remains.

Back when I was at HP and we got involved with what turned into SML (now a W3C candidate recommendation), we tried to make a case for the specification to be based on RDF/OWL rather than XML/XSD/Schematron. It was a strange situation from a technical perspective because RDF is a better foundation for an IT model than XML, but on the other hand XSD/Schematron is a better choice for validation than OWL. OWL is focused on inference, not validation (because of both fundamental design choices, e.g. the open world assumption, and language expressiveness limitations).

So our options were to either use the right way to represent the system (RDF) combined with the wrong way to capture constraints (OWL) or to use the wrong way to represent the system (XML) combined with the right way to constrain it (mostly Schematron, with some limited help from XSD). At the end, of course, this subtle technical debate was crushed under the steamroller of vendor politics and RDF never got a fair chance anyway.

The point of this little background story is to describe the context in which I read this announcement from Holger Knublauch of TopQuadrant: the new version of their TopBraid Composer tool introduces SPIN, a way to complement OWL with a SPARQL-based constraint checking and inference mechanism.

This relates to SML in two ways.

First, there are similarities in the approach: Schematron leverages the XPath language, used to query XML, to create validation rules. SML then marries Schematron with XSD, for a more powerful validation mechanism. Compare this to SPIN: SPIN leverages the SPARQL query language, used to query RDF, to create validation/inference rules. SPIN also marries this with OWL, for a more powerful validation/inference mechanism.

But beyond the mirroring structures of SPIN and SML, the most interesting thing is that it looks like SPIN could nicely solve the conundrum, described above, of RDF being the right foundation for modeling IT systems but OWL being the wrong constraint mechanism. SPIN may do a better job than SML at what SML is aiming to do (validation rules). And at the same time, you get “for free” (or as close to “for free” as you can get with software, which is still far from “free”) a pretty powerful inference mechanism. The most powerful I know of, short of using a general programming language to capture your inference rules (and good luck with maintaining these rules).

This may sound like sci-fi, but it’s the next logical step for IT configuration standardization. Let’s look at where we are today:

• SML (at W3C) is an attempt to standardize the expression of constraints.
• CMDBf (at DMTF) is standardizing how the model content is queried (and, to some limited extent at this point, federated).
• And recently IBM authored a proposal for a reconciliation specification for items in the model and sent it to an Eclipse group (COSMOS).

But once you tackle reconciliation, you are already half-way into inferencing territory. At least if you want to reconcile between models, not just between instances expressed in the same model. Because the models may not be defined at the same level of granularity, and before you can reconcile items you need to infer finer-grained entities in your coarser-grained model (or vice-versa) so that you can reconcile apples with apples.

Today, inferencing for IT models is done as part of the “discovery packs” that you can buy along with your IT management model repository. But not very well, in general. Because the way you write such a discovery module for the HP Universal CMDB is very different from how you write it for the BMC CMDB, IBM’s CCMDB or as a plug-in for Oracle Enterprise Manager or Microsoft System Center. Not to mention the smaller, more specialized, players. As a result, there is little incentive for 3rd party domain experts to put work into capturing inference rules since the work cannot be widely leveraged.

I am going a bit off-topic here, but one interesting thing about standardization of inferencing for IT management, if it happens, is that it is going to be very hard to not use RDF, OWL and some flavor of SPARQL (SPIN or equivalent) there. And once you do that, the XML-based constraint mechanisms (SML or others) are going to be in for a rough ride. After resisting the RDF stack for constraints, queries and basic reconciliation (because the added value was supposedly not “worth the cost” for each of these separately), the XML dam might get a crack for inferencing. And once RDF starts to trickle through that crack, the whole dam is going to come down in a big wave. Just to be clear, this is a prophetic long-term vision, not a prediction for 2009 (unfortunately).

In the meantime, I’d like to take this SPIN feature a… spin (sorry) when I find some time. We’ll see if I can install the new beta of TopBraid composer despite having used up, a year ago, my evaluation license of the earlier version of the product. Despite what I had hopped at some point, this is not directly applicable to my current work, so I am not sure I want to buy a license. But who knows, SPIN may turn out to be the change that eventually puts RDF back on my “day job” list (one can dream)…

It’s also nice that Holger took the pain to deliver SPIN not just as a feature of his product but also as a stand-alone specification, which should make it pretty easy for anyone who has a SPARQL engine handy to support it. Hopefully the next step will be for him to clarify the IP terms for the specification and to decide whether or not he wants to eventually submit it for standardization. Maybe to the W3C SML working group? :-) I’d have a hard time resisting joining if he did.

Things went quiet for a while, but the W3C Web Services Resource Access Working Group has finally taken life, as was announced last week. It’s a well-know PR trick to announce bad news on a Friday such that it goes undetected, is it a coincidence that W3C picked a Friday for this announcement?

As you can tell by this last remark, I have no trouble containing my enthusiasm about this new group. Which should not come as a surprise to regular readers of this blog (see this, this, this and this, chronologically).

The most obvious potential pushback against this effort is the questionable architectural need to redo over SOAP what can be done over simple HTTP. Along the lines of Erik Wilde’s “HTTP over SOAP over HTTP” post. But I don’t expect too much noise about this aspect, because even on the blogosphere people eventually get tired of repeating the same arguments. If some really wanted to put up a fight against this, it would have been done when the group was first announced, not now. That resource modeling party is over.

While I understand the “WS-Transfer is just HTTP over SOAP over HTTP” argument, this is not my problem with this group. For one thing, this group is not really about WS-Transfer, it’s about WS-ResourceTransfer (WS-RT) which adds fine-grained resource access on top of WS-Transfer. Which is not something that HTTP gives you out of the box. You may argue that this is not needed (just model your addressable resources in a fine-grained way and use “hypermedia” to navigate between them) but I don’t really buy this. At least not in the context of IT management models, which is where the whole thing started. You may be able to architect an IT management system in such RESTful way, but even if you can it’s too far away from current IT modeling practices to be practical in many scenarios (unfortunately, as it would be a great complement to an RDF-based IT model). On the other hand, I am not convinced that this fine-grained access needs to go beyond “read” (i.e. no need for “fine-grained write”).

The next concern along that “HTTP over SOAP over HTTP” line of thought might then be why build this on top of SOAP rather than on top of HTTP. I don’t really buy this one either. SOAP, through the SOAP processing model (mainly the use of headers, something that WS-RT unfortunately butchers) is better suited than HTTP for such extensions. And enough of them have already been defined that you may want to piggyback on. The main problem with SOAP is the WS-Addressing tumor that grew on it (first I thoughts it was just a wart, but then it metastatized). WS-RT is affected by it, but it’s not intrinsic to WS-RT.

Finally, it would be a little hard for me to reject SOAP-based resources access altogether, having been associated with many such systems: WSMF, WSDM/WSRF, WS-Management and even WS-RT in its pre-submission days (and my pre-Oracle days). Not that I have signed away my rights to change my mind.

So my problem with WS-RAWG is not a fundamental architectural problem. It’s not even a problem with the defects in the current version of WS-RT. They are fixable and the alternative specifications aren’t beauty queens either.

Rather, my concerns are focused on the impact on the interoperability landscape.

When WS-RT started (when I was involved in it), it was as part of a convergence effort between HP, IBM, Intel and Microsoft. With the plan to use this to unify the competing WS-Management and WSDM/WSRF stacks. Sure it was also an opportunity to improve things a bit, but 90% of the value came from the convergence/unification aspect, not technical improvements.

With three of the four companies having given up on this, it isn’t much of a convergence anymore. Rather then paring-down the number of conflicting options that developers have to chose from (a choice that usually results in “I won’t pick either sine there is no consensus, I’ll just do it my own way”), this effort is going to increase it. One more candidate. WS-Management is not going to go away, and it’s pretty likely that in W3C WS-RT will move further away from it.

Not to mention the fact that CMDBf (and its SOAP-based graph-oriented query protocol) has since emerged and is progressing towards standardization. At this point, my (notoriously buggy) crystal ball shows a mix of WS-management and CMDBf taking the prize overall. With WS-Management used to access individual resources and CMDBf used to access any kind of overall system view. Which, as a side note, means that DMTF has really taken this game over (at least in the IT management domain) from W3C and OASIS. Not that W3C really wanted to be part of the game in the first place…

The SML working group at W3C has published the “last call” working draft of version 1.1 of the SML and SML-IF (“IF” stands for “interchange format”) specifications. You have until October 3rd to tell them what you think.

With all the Oslo fun, the OMG embrace and the silence from System Center there are more questions than answers about the use of SML at Microsoft. But the Eclipse COSMOS project (IBM and friends) is, as far as I know, valiantly going forward with the store/validator implementation. Which may or may not be the same codebase as what was used for the recent CMDBf interop demo (I am not sure how the SML and CDMBf implementations in COSMOS are articulated).

The COSMOS group also recently published an overview of SML. It doesn’t try to tell you why you’d want to use SML but it’s a good and succint description of what SML is technically (from an XML developer’s perspective).

The original proposal for a “WS Resource Access Working Group” mentioned that WS-Eventing might later join the party. It’s now done, and the proposed name for this expanded W3C working group is “WS Resource Interaction Working Group”.

It takes me no effort to imagine the discussions that turned “access” into “interaction”. Which means I am not cured yet, after a year of post-standards therapy.

IBM hurried to “clarify” how, in their view, this proposal relates to the existing WS-Notification standard. The logic seems to be: WS-notification is a great general-purpose pub/sub spec, WS-Eventing is a pub/sub spec used in the device management spec, to prevent confusion we will make them overlap completely by making WS-Eventing another general purpose pub/sub spec.

Someone who’s been paying attention asks how this relates to the WSDM/WS-Management convergence. IBM’s answer is a model of understatement: “other activities in the WS community should not delay their work in anticipation of new documents being produced”.

As the sign at New York’s pier 59 might have read in 1912: “visitors expecting to great RMS Titanic passengers should not delay their activities in anticipation of the boat arriving in the harbor”.

As far as I know, the W3C is still reviewing the proposal that was made to them to create a new working group to standardize WS-Transfer, WS-ResourceTransfer, WS-Enumeration and WS-MetadataExchange. The suggested name, “Web Services Resource Access Working Group” or WS-RAWG is likely, if it sticks, to end up being shortened to WS-RAW. Which is a bit more cruel than needed. I’d say it’s simply half-baked.

There are many aspects to the specifications and features covered by the proposal. Some goodness, some badness and some ugliness. This post analyzes the good, points at the bad and hints at the ugly. Like your average family-oriented summer movie.

The good

The specifications proposed for W3C standardization describe a way to provide some generally useful features for SOAP messages. Some SOAP messages can get very long. In some cases, I know ahead of time what portion of the long messages promised by the contract (e.g. WSDL) I want. Wouldn’t it be nice, as an optimization, to let the message sender know about this so they can, if they are able to, filter down the message to just the part I want? Alternatively, maybe I do want the full response but I can’t consume it as one big message so I would like to get it in chunks.

You’ll notice that the paragraph above says nothing about “resources”. We are just talking about messaging features for SOAP messages. There are precedents for this. WS-Security can be used to encrypt a message. Any message. WS-ReliableMessaging can be used to ensure delivery of a message. Any message. These “quality of service” specifications are mostly orthogonal to the message content.

WS-RT and WS-Enumeration provide a solution to the “message filtering” and “message chunking”, respectively. But they only address them in the context of a GET-like operation. They can’t be layered on top of any SOAP message. How useful would WS-Security and WS-ReliableMessaging be if they had such a restriction?

If W3C takes on part of the work listed in the proposal, I hope they’ll do so in a way that expends the utility of these features to all SOAP messages.

And just like WS-Security and WS-ReliableMessaging, these features should be provided in a way that leverages the SOAP processing model. Such that I can judiciously use the soap:mustUnderstand header to not break existing services. If I’d like the message to be paired down but I can handle the complete message if need be, I’ll set this attribute to false. If I can’t handle the full message, I’ll set the attribute to true and I’ll get an error if the other party doesn’t understand this extension. At which point I can pick an alternative way to get the task accomplished. Sounds pretty basic but it’s amazing how often this important feature of SOAP (which heralds from and extends XML’s must-ignore semantics) is neglected and obstructed by designers of SOAP messages.

And then there is WS-MetadataExchange. While I am not a huge fan of this specification, I agree with the need for a simple, reliable way to retrieve different types of metadata for an endpoint.

So that’s the (potential) good. A flexible and generally useful way to pair-down long SOAP messages, to chunk them and to retrieve metadata for SOAP endpoints.

The bad

The bad is the whole “resource access” spin. It is not actually intrinsically bad. There are scenarios where such a pattern actually fits. But the way that pattern is being addressed by WS-RT and friends is overly generalized and overly XML-centric. By the latter I mean that it takes XML from an agreed-upon on-the-wire interchange format to an implicit metamodel (e.g. it assumes not just that you agree to exchange XML-formated data but that your model and your business logic are organized and implemented around an XML representation of the domain, which is a much more constraining requirement). I could go on and on about this, especially the use of XPath in the PUT operation. In fact I did go on and on with it, but I spun that off as a separate entry.

In the context of the W3C proposal at hand, this is bad because it burdens the generally useful features (see the “good” section above) with an unneeded and limiting formalism. Not to mention the fact that W3C kind of already has its resource access mechanism, but I’ll leave that aspect of the question to Mark and various bloggers (see a short list of relevant posts at the end of this entry).

The resource access part might be worth doing (one more time), but probably not in the same group as things like metadata discovery, message filtering and message chunking, which are not specific to “resource access” situations. And if someone is going to do this again, rather than repeating the not too useful approaches of the past, it may be good to consider alternatives.

The ugly

That’s the politics around this whole deal. There is, as you would expect, a lot more to it than meets the eye. The underlying drivers for all this have little to do with REST/WS or other architecture considerations. They have a lot to do with control. But that’s a topic for another post (maybe) when more of it can be publicly discussed.

A lot of what I describe in this post was already explained in the WS-ManagementHammer post from a couple of months ago. But that was before the W3C proposal and before WS-MetadataExchange was dragged into the deal. So I thought it might be useful to put the analysis in the context of that proposal. And BTW, this is a personal opinion, not an Oracle position (which is true in general for everything on this blog but is worth repeating specifically for this post).

You’ve just driven into Standardstown. It’s getting late and you need a place to stay. Your GPS navigation system has five listings under “accommodations”, with the following descriptions:

W3C campground

This campground provides well-equipped tents (free wi-fi throughout the camp). It has the most developed community feeling of all nearby accommodations. Every evening residents gather around a bonfire and the camp elders sing cryptic songs. At the end, the elders nod in approval of the moral of the song. Most campers don’t understand the lyrics but they like the melody. There is a recurring argument about how much soap the campground management should provide to guests. Old timers want to do away with this practice, but management is afraid that business travelers won’t patronize the camp if they are not provided with plenty of soap. The camp is located along a river, downstream from a large factory. When stuff floats down from the factory and lands on the shore of the camp, they call it a submission and thank for factory. So far, the attempts to build a clubhouse from the factory rubbish has mainly created eyesores.

OASIS housing development

This housing development is an option for accommodation because its management will give a plot of land to almost anyone who asks. More specifically, there needs to be at least three of you in the car. If you’re on your own, a common trick is to go pick up the village drunk (offer him a drink) and the village idiot (tell him you want his advice). They can usually be found on the main plaza, arguing about the requirements of imaginary users. Once you have your plot of land, the OASIS management maintains electric power, water and sewer but you can do pretty much what you want otherwise. If you just need temporary housing, you can just pitch a tent. As a result of this approach, there are several houses abandoned half-way through construction. This can make it hard to find your way to the house you are looking for. Residents typically don’t know anything about what’s going on in the house next door. You’ll find nice families living next to a crack house.

Motel DMTF

This motel is hard to find because it hides behind high walls. Even once you’re inside, there are segregated areas. Chances are your room card will give you access to the pool deck but not the clubhouse. Make a mental note of the way to the emergency exits, because there is no evacuation map on the wall (the map exists, but it’s considered confidential). We’ve heard that the best suites have a special door for direct access to the management office. After you leave, you can’t tell your friends what happened there. This review itself probably breaks some confidentiality rule.

WS-I Resort

This time-share resort is the newest development in town. By the time it got built, all the good land was taken so they had to build on land fragments leased from other hotels. The facilities are new and nice, but the owners association is dysfunctional. We’ve been told the feud started when a co-owner tried to organize a private mime show on shared land. Whatever the origin of the disagreement it has resulted in veto rules being commonly invoked, stopping most of the activities that the resort was originally planning to offer. But it remains a good option if you just need a place to sleep. The resort marketing has been pretty efficient: before doing business with you, many local companies will demand to see a receipt to show that you slept there.

Hotel ISO

Just getting a reservation there is a month-long process, so this is not an option if you’re already in town. Unfortunately, if you plan to do business with the local government you are expected to patronize this hotel. If that’s your case, the solution is to sleep in one of the other places in town and just go to this hotel for breakfast. Once there, order their breakfast special (called the “fast-track ruber stamp” which, unfortunately, tastes as bad as it sounds) and staple the breakfast receipt to your hotel bill. That should satisfy the city hall staff that they can do business with you.

A bit over a month ago, I mentioned my hope that WS-ResourceTransfer (WS-RT) would be allowed to rest in peace. This is apparently not to be and the specification is now on its way to W3C, along with WS-Transfer, WS-MetadataExchange and WS-Enumeration. This is not all that surprising and I had even hazarded a guess of who would join IBM in doing this. My list was IBM, CA, Fujitsu and Cisco. I got three out of four right, but Oracle replaced Cisco. The fact that the company I got wrong happens to be my employer is something I can’t really comment on, other than acknowledging the irony…

This is a very important development in the area of management standards. Some of the specifications listed here are used by WS-Management. They are also clearly intended to replace the WS-ResourceFramework stack that underpins WSDM. This is especially true of WS-RT which almost directly overlaps with WS-ResourceProperties. Users of both WS-Management and WSDM will take notice. As will those who have been standing on the side, waiting for things to stabilize…

If you are trying to relate this announcement to the WS-Management/WSDM convergence previously going on between Microsoft, IBM, HP and Intel (which is the forum in which WS-RT was originally produced), it looks like this is what the “convergence” has turned into. Except that three of the four vendors seem to have dropped out, thus my quotation marks around the word “convergence”.

The applicability of these specifications outside of the management domain seems to be assumed in this submission. It’s been often asserted but, in my mind, not yet proven. I don’t see the use of WS-RT by WS-Federation as a proof of this relevance (one of these days I’ll write a post to explain why).

It will be interesting to see how the W3C responds to this offer. The expected retort didn’t take long. If WS-RT wasn’t allowed to rest in peace, it won’t be allowed to REST in peace either. You can expect the blogosphere to light up with “WS-Transfer for RESTful applications” discussions (mostly making fun of WS-Transfer’s HTTP envy) very soon. Even though that’s just one of the many angles from which you can view this development, and not the most interesting one.

[UPDATED 2008/7/6: It took a little longer than expected, but the snarky/ironic blog posts have started: Steve, Mark, Tim, Bill, Stefan]

This post started as a comment on the blog of Van Wiles. When it became too long (and turned into a therapeutic rant at the end) I turned it into a blog post of its own. Please, read Van’s post first. Here is my response to him:

Hi Van. Sounds like what you are after is not a mapping of the CIM_Dependency association to a CMDBf record type (anyone can make up such a mapping as you point out), but a generic algorithm to map any CIM association to a corresponding CMDBf relationship record type. Correct? That algorithm needs to handle the fact that the CIM metamodel has the concept of relationship roles while the CMDBf metamodel doesn’t.

Here is a possible such mapping:

1. Take a CIM association (called “myAssociation”) that has two roles (called “thisOne” and “theOtherOne”).
2. Take the item that has role name that comes first alphabetically and make it the source (in this example, it is “theOtherOne”)
3. Take the item that has role name that comes second alphabetically and make it the target (in this example, it is “thisOne”)
4. Generate a CMDBf record type called “{associationName} _from_ {firstRoleNameAlphabetically} _to_ {secondRoleNameAlphabetically}”

You’re done. The new CMDBf record type is “myAssociation_from_theOtherOne_to_thisOne”, the source is the item with the role “theOtherOne” and the target is the item with the role “thisOne”. Everyone who follows this algorithm (of course it needs to be formally defined and evangelized, there is no guarantee here unless we bake CIM-specific concepts in the core CMDBf specification, which would be a mistake) will produce the same CMDBf relationship record type for a given CIM association.

Applied to the CIM_Dependency example, this would generate a “CIM_Dependency_from_Antecedent_to_Dependent” CMDBf record type, in which the source is the CIM Antecedent and the target is the CIM Dependent.

Alternatively, you can have the algorithm generate two CMDBf relationship record types (one going in each direction) for each CIM association. So you don’t have to arbitrarily pick the first one (alphabetically) as the source. But then you need to have model metadata to capture the fact that these relationships are the inverse of one another (and imply one another). As you well know,I have been advocating for the use of RDF/RDFS/OWL in CMDBf for a while. :-)

In the end, there are three potential approaches:

1) Someone (the CMDBf group or someone else) creates an authoritative mapping for all CIM associations (or at least all the useful ones) and we expect anyone who uses the CIM model with CMDBf to use that mapping.

2) Someone (again, the CMDBf group or someone else) defines a normative CIM to CMDBf mapping, e.g. the one above, and we expect anyone who generates a CMDBf relationship record type from a CIM association to use this mapping algorithm. From a pure logical perspective, it is the same as defining a CMDBf record type for each CIM association (approach 1), but it is less work and it doesn’t have to be updated every time a CIM association is created/versioned. At the cost of uglier (more arbitrary) CMDBf record types being defined.

3) We let people define the relationships in whatever way they choose and we provide a model metadata framework (aka ontology language) to allow mappings between these approaches. For example, you define, in your namespace, a van:CIM-inspired-dependency CMDBf record type that goes from antecedent to dependent. Separately, I defined, in my namespace, a william:CIM-like-dependency CMDBf record type that carries the same semantics (defined, not so precisely BTW but that’s a different topic, by CIM) except that its source is the dependent and its target is the antecedent. The inverse of yours. A suitable ontology language would allow someone (you, me, or a third party who has to assemble a system that uses both relationship types) to assert that mine is the inverse of yours. Once this assertion is captured, a request for any [A]—(van:CIM-inspired-dependency)—>[B] would also return the instances of [B]—(william:CIM-like-dependency)—>[A] because they are known to be the same. And you know how I am going to conclude, of course: OWL (specifically owl:inverseOf) provides just this.

BTW, approach 3 is not incompatible with 1 or 2. Whether or not we define mappings for CIM relationships and whether or not that mapping gets adopted, there will be plenty of cases in a federated scenario in which you need to reconcile models (CIM-based or not). Model metadata (aka an ontology language) is useful anyway.

Readers who only care about the technical aspects and have little time for rants can stop reading here. But, since I haven’t addressed any constructive criticism to the DMTF in a while, I can’t resist the opportunity to point out that if the mailing list archives for the DMTF working groups were publicly available, we wouldn’t have to have these discussions on our personal blogs. I am very glad that Van posted this on his blog because it is a question that many people will have. Whatever the CMDBf specification ends up doing, developers and architects who make use of it will benefit from having access to the deliberations and considerations that resulted in the specification being what it is. There are many emails in the CMDBf mailing list private archive that I am sure would be useful to future CMDBf implementers, but if they don’t show up on Google they don’t exist for any practical purpose. When grappling with the finer points of some specification or programming language I have often Googled my way into email archives (or old specification drafts) of the working groups that designed them. Sometimes I come out thinking “oh, ok, now I understand why they chose that approach” and other times it’s “ok, that’s what I suspected, these guys were high”. Either way, it’s useful to me as a user of the specification. W3C is the best example (of making working group records available, not of being high): not only is the mailing list available but the phone meetings often have a supporting IRC channel in which key points of the discussion get captured and archived. Here is an example. Making life easier for implementers is probably the single most important thing to make a specification successful. And ultimately, that’s the DMTF’s success too.

And it’s not just for developers and architects. It also impacts industry observers and pundits. Like the IT Skeptic who looked into CMDBf and reported “nothing on the DMTF website but press releases. try to find anything by navigating from the homepage”. And you wonder why his article is titled “the CMDB Federation proceeeds (sic) at its usual glacial pace”. There is good work going on, but there is no way for him to see it. This too is bad for the adoption and credibility of DMTF specifications.

Isn’t it ironic that the DMTF expends resources to sponsor a “hospitality suite” at the Burton Group Catalyst conference (presumably to spread the word about the good work taking place in the organization) but fails to make it easy for the industry to see that same good work taking place? It’s like a main street retail shop that advertises in the newspaper but covers its store window with cardboard, preventing passersby from seeing what’s on offer. I notice that all the other “hospitality suites” seem to be staffed by for-profit vendors (Oracle, IBM, Cisco, Microsoft etc are all there). Somehow W3C and OASIS (whose work is very relevant to some of the conference themes, like identity management and SOA) don’t feel the need to give away pens and key chains at the conference.

Dear DMTF, open source is not just good for code.

I got a sneak peak at CMDBf v2 today.

I am calling it v2 based on the assumption that the one being currently standardized in DMTF will end up being called 1.0 (because it’s the first one out of DMTF) or 1.1 (to prevent confusion with the submitted version).

At the Semantic Technology Conference, David Booth from HP presented his work (along with his partner, Steve Battle from HP Labs) to provide a SPARQL front-end to HP’s Universal CMDB (the engine under what was the Mercury MAM product). Here are the slides.

The mapping from SPARQL to TQL (the native query interface for UCMDB) was made pretty easy by the fact that TQL is a graph-oriented query language. How much harder would it be to similarly transform a CMDBf (v1) query interface into a SPARQL query interface (and vice-versa)? Not much. The only added difficulty would come from the CMDBf XPath constraints. TQL has a property value mechanism that is very similar to CMDBf’s “propertyValue” constraint and maps well to SPARQL functions. The introduction of XPath as a constraint language in CMDBf makes things harder. It could be handled by adding XPath support to the SPARQL engine using function extensibility. Or by turning the entire XML into RDF and emulating XPath in SPARQL. But in either case, you’ll have impedence mismatch at some point because concepts such as element order that exist in XPath have no native equivalent in RDF.

The use of XPath in selectors on the other hand is not a problem. HP’s prototype uses Gloze (available as a Jena package) to turn the XML returned by UCMDB into RDF. An XSLT transform could turn that same XML into a CMDBf-valid XML response instead and that XSLT could easily handle the XPath selectors from the query request. This is another reason why constraints and selectors should remain separate in CMDBf (fortunately the specification is back to doing this properly).

Here is why I call this prototype CMDBf v2: The CMDBf effort (v1 or 1.1), in its current form of re-inventing a graph query, can succeed. Let’s assume the working group strikes a reasonable balance between completeness and complexity, and vendors choose to compete on innovation and execution rather than lock-in (insert cynical comment here). CMDBf may then end up being supported by the main CMDB vendors. It wouldn’t provide federation capabilities, but having a common CMDB query interface supported by the Big Four would help with management integration. And yet, while the value would be real, it would only provide a little help to solve a larger problem:

• As a technology limited to IT systems management, it would be unlikely to see widely available tools (e.g. user consoles and language-specific libraries).
• It wouldn’t get the kind of robustness and interoperability that comes from wide adoption. While pretty similar, there might be some minor differences in the various implementations. Once your implementation has been tweaked to work with the implementations from the Big Four, you’ll call it done. Just like SNMP, another technology that is specific to IT systems management (see it happen here).
• Even if it works perfectly at the query level, it will just hasten the time when developers run into the real problem, model interoperability. CMDBf doesn’t help at all with this. In fact, it makes it harder by hard-coding some dependencies on an XML back-end (the XPath constraints).

In the long run, IT management has to become more automated and integrated. That’s a given. The way it happens may or may not go through CMDB-like configuration stores. But if it does, we’ll have to eventually move beyond CMDBf (v1) towards something that addresses the three requirements above. And federation. I don’t know if it will be called CMDBf v2, and/or if it will come from the DMTF (by then, the CMDBf brand might be an asset or a liability depending on developer experience with the specification). But I strongly suspect (“probability 0.8″ as a Gartner analyst might put it) that it will use semantic technologies. Because the real, hard, underlying problem is a problem of semantic integration. In that sense, David and Steve’s prototype is a sneak peek at what will come after CMDBf v1/1.1.

Pretty much since the beginning of CMDBf I have been pushing for it to ideally embrace SPARQL (with no success) or to at least stay close to it conceptually in order to make the eventual mapping/evolution smooth (with a bit more success). This includes pushing for a topological query language, trying to keep XML idiosyncrasies at bay and keeping constraints and selectors cleanly separated. Rather than working within the CMDBf group, David took the alternative approach of simply doing it. Hopefully this will help convince people of the value of re-using semantic web technology for IT systems management. Yes semantic technologies have been designed for a much more general use case. But the use cases that CMDB systems address are a subset of the use cases addressed by semantic technologies. It’s hard for domain experts to see their domain as just a subset of a larger problem, but this is the case here. Isn’t HTTP serving the IT management community better than a systems management-specific alternative would?

By the way, there is no inferencing taking place in the HP prototype. We are just talking about re-using an existing, well though-through graph query language. Sure OWL inferencing and some rules could be seamless layered on top of this. But this is in no way required to do (better) what CMDBf v1 tries to do.

And then there is the “federation” question. Who do you trust more to deliver this? A bunch of IT system management architects in DMTF or the web and query experts at W3C, HP Labs etc who designed and implemented SPARQL over many years? BTW, it sounds like SPQARL federation was discussed at WWW 2008, based on these meeting notes (search for “federation”).

I have been involved in various capacity with five different specifications that define a GET (or GET-like) operation that takes as input an XPath expression used to pinpoint the subset of the XML document that should be retrieved (here is a quick history as of a couple of years ago, more has happened since). And I must shamefully admit that all but one are simply impossible to implement in an interoperable way.

That’s because they instruct implementers to return an XPath nodeset in the response SOAP message but say nothing about how to serialize the nodeset. While an XPath nodeset contains the kind of things that make up an XML document, it is not an XML document by itself. There is an infinite number of possible ways to serialized an XPath nodeset into XML. To have any hope of interoperability on this, a serialization algorithm has to be clearly described by the specification. Which hasn’t happened.

Let’s start with WS-ResourceProperties (WS-RP). It has a QueryResourceProperties operation that takes an XPath expression as input. The specification says that “the response MUST contain an XML serialization of the results of evaluating the QueryExpression against the resource properties document“. Great, thanks. The example provided happens to return a nodeset with only one node (a boolean), which is implicitly serialized into the text representation of that boolean. What if there is more than one node in the nodeset? What about other types of nodes?

Moving on to WS-Management, which defines a SOAP header that uses XPath to qualify a WS-Transfer GET request such that it only retrieves a subset of the target XML document. While it does a better job than WS-RP at describing the input (e.g. it specifies the context node and what namespace declarations are in scope for the XPath evaluation) it is even more cavalier than WS-RP in describing the output: “the output (lines 53-55) is like that supplied by a typical XPath processor and might or might not contain XML namespace information or attributes“. By “a typical XPath processor” we should understand MSXML I suppose. But as far as I know a “typical XML processor” doesn’t return XML, it returns language-specific data structures (e.g. a C# or Java object, like a nu.xom.Nodes instance). And here too, the examples only use single-node nodesets.

WS-ResourceTransfer (WS-RT) was supposed to be the convergence of these two efforts, so presumably it would have learned from their mistakes. While it is better written in general than its predecessors, it fails just as badly with regards to specifying the nodeset serialization. And once again, the example provided uses a nodeset with just one node.

And then came the CMDBf query operation which, for some unclear reason, was deemed in need of a built-in XPath transformation of records. As I pointed out in my review of CMDBf 1.0 at the time, this feature was added without taking the pain to define the XML serialization of the resulting nodeset. And there isn’t even an example of the XPath serialization.

It is sad in a way, but the only specification that acknowledges the problem and addresses it came before any of the four above even got started. It is the WSMF (Web Services Management Framework) work that we did at HP, and more specifically the “note on dynamic attributes and meta information” (not available at HP anymore but available from archive.org) . This specification was the first one to define a GET operation that is qualified by an XPath expression. Unlike its successors it also explicitly narrowed down the types of nodes that could be selected (“The manager MUST NOT send as input an XPath statement that returns a nodeset containing nodes other than element, attribute and namespace nodes“). And for those valid types it described how to serialized them in XML (“When a node in the result nodeset is an attribute node, for the sake of the response it is serialized as an element node which has the same name as the name of the original attribute (see example 4 for an illustration). The element is in the same namespace as the namespace the attribute it represents is in. This applies to namespace nodes as well, they are serialized like an attributes in the xmlns namespace“). Turning an attribute into an element of the same QName might not be the smartest thing in retrospect (after all there may be an element by that QName already) but at least we recognized and addressed the problem.

But all is good now, I am told, because XPath 2.0 is here, along with a clean data model and a well-described serialization.

Not so. Anyone wanting to use XPath for a SOAP-based query language still would have to specify a serialization.

The first problem with the W3C serialization is that the XML output method doesn’t work for all nodesets. Try to use it on a nodeset that contains a top-level attribute node and you get error err:SENR0001. And even for the nodesets it accepts, it sometimes returns less-than-useful results. For example, if your XPath is of the form /employee/name/text() and you have four employees, the result will look something like this:

“Joe SmithKathy O’ConnorHelen MartinBrian Jones”

Concatenated text values without separators. I guess W3C is like a department store, they don’t offer complimentary wrapping anymore…

That’s why the nux.xom.xquery.ResultSequenceSerializer class had to define its own wrapping mechanims to produce a useful XML serialization. The API gives you the choice between the W3C_ALGORITHM and the WRAP_ALGORITHM.

Bottom line, and however much some would like to think of it that way, XPath (1 or 2) is not an XML subsetting/transformation mechanism. It could be used to create one (as XSLT does), but you have to do your own plumbing.

In addition to the technical aspects of this discussion, what else can be learned from this sad state of things? The fact that all these specifications define an XPath-driven query mechanism that is simply broken (beyond the simplest use cases) withouth anyone even noticing tells me that there isn’t a real need for full XPath query over SOAP (and I am talking about XPath 1.0, the introduction of XPath 2.0 in CMDBf is even more out there). A way to retrieve individual elements (and maybe text values) is all that is needed for 99% of the use cases addressed by these specifications. Users would be better served (especially in a version 1.0) by specifications that cover the simple case correctly than by overly generic, complex and poorly documented features. There is always time to add features later if the initial specification is successful enough that users encounter its limitations.