This is an excerpt from a conversation Ruv and I were having with Michael, I'll post it here so everyone can benefit:
>>>>> "Pat" == Pat Wendorf <p...@enomaly.com> writes:
Pat> Beyond viewing the Ontology there's not much you can do. The
Pat> document is meant to show what exactly we'll be representing in
Pat> UCI, like when we make a call to return the state of Amazon EC2
Pat> or Google App Engine, what kind of data will be returned. It
Pat> also doesn't specify what exactly the data will look like in
Pat> the user interface. UCI is meant to be a control and
Pat> representational system, right now we're focusing on the
Pat> representational part.
Pat> Where we need help is figuring out if the document fully
Pat> describes everything that can be done with the current
Pat> generation of cloud providers. Filling in these details in the
Pat> document, in a common language is the key to the success of the
Yeah, so I'm potentially a cloud *provider* in my role at SIMtone.
I also sold VMs for awhile as cooperix.net, but I am not capitalized
to compete these days... we started in 2004, when nobody was doing it.
(I'm looking for additional roles to play in other places... I come
from a consulting background, and aim to return there by the end of the
year. I come from the IETF space... author rfc4025, 5386..)
I look at the subclass explorer and I see things.
I think that an
"Application_Container" is something like google/azure provide.
I think that this should be in the comment?
that was our thinking, Application_Container is used to describe the
features of a Platform Cloud like Google App Engine. The details under
this tree are very sparse at this point, as this is not our area of
expertise, I was hoping someone could come in and fill this a little
"VM Container" is obviously VMware, XEN, Hyper-V.
Under physical storage... I think "File Storage" means NFS/CIFS.
Maybe that should be subclasses?
the plan, we have one of our developers merging the details of the
base.owl file, which much better represents this level of detail, with
cloud.owl (which allows more "stuff" to be represented).
A real, practical thing about moving a Guest Machine from a provider
(say, me!) that is running classic XEN 3.x with a self-patched 2.6.16 or
2.6.18 PV guest kernel to 2.6.26 "native" paravirt, is that the
partitions were "raw" before (i.e. "sda4" <-> /dev/VolGroup00/Guest1Home)
while they mostly insist on putting partition tables in them now.
Is this the kind of thing that needs to be expressed here?
the machine is PV, absolutely. Looking at the doc now, I don't see how
we would express this (in classes or properties), so this kind of
configuration should be broken into component pieces and represented in
I also do not see anything about network interfaces under
"VM_Container", nor do I see how I might explain that I need three guest
machines connected with a virtual switch.
Does this kind of thing fit in?
think the networking component is one level above the VM_Container,
it's possible that the switch a VM connects to could be referenced with
a property. That's a pretty easy one to add in.
Am I right that this ontology is supposed to describe a set of data
(be a kind of "schema") which I will map my real-life data into?
Yes, exactly right.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----