rfc316.txt

RFC技术文档 从0000－05

   to do with a network data facility.

   The following list, gleamed from the discussion, represents the
   possible stages of development:

   1.  Transmission Facility - the Network Data Control Facility (DCF)
       is able to route requests for files to the proper node.  The
       location and name must be specified.

   2.  Location Catalog- The DCF now has available to it a catalog which
       contains the locations of the data sets to be used in the
       network.  Requests for files may be made by name only, the
       location being determined by the DCF.

   3.  Description Catalog - Descriptions, as well as data sets can be
       transmitted in the network.  It is assumed these descriptions
       exist as files at local nodes.  A target node can make use of the
       description to properly convert the data set to its own format.

   4.  Data Conversion Modules - Data descriptions are received by this
       module of the DCF.  Based on the descriptions, conversion
       programs are called or generated which will transform a file to
       the form required by the target node.




McKay & Mulleray                                                [Page 4]

RFC 316              Data Management Working Group         February 1972


   5.  File Access Command Interface - this module is able to convert a
       request for a file from a network data language to the local
       language at which the file is located.

   6.  Data Access - This module, an extension of the network data
       language and the interface modules, allows access to pieces of
       data as specified in the data language, and generates the proper
       local access commands.

   7.  Data Management Interface - This is the final stage, at which
       general types of commands can be interfaced to local data
       managements systems, providing general interaction among
       different data amanagement systems at different nodes.

   It was generally agreed that the ability to access all data and
   different data bases is a goal which is worth achieving.  There was
   discussion in what is the best way to achieve this goal, and the
   actual implementation techniques that could be used to achieve this.
   It was agreed that the data base interfacing problem should be
   studied in more detail and several people more willing to write
   reports on a representative problem when they have more results from
   their work.

   There was also a discussion concerning the data language and whether
   it is suitable or not.  One fact should be made clear, the results of
   this committee should not fail or succeed on the outcome of the data
   language question.  The initial proposal recommends the Datalanguage
   as de facto standard that will be adopted in the network because of
   its support and availability.  The group should be able to recommend
   changes when changes are shown to be necessary.

   The Datalanguage discussion did point out the need for having data
   set descriptions cataloged and referable by name - D. Winter, said
   that he would look into this problem.

   The proposal (RFC 304) for a network data facility should be read
   again and discussed in more detail at our next meeting.  The proposal
   says we can implement and achieve a stage 3 capability with what we
   know today.  It would be a useful stepping stone to a stage 5 and
   stage 6 capability.

   Related to the stages of development described above the following
   studies are now in progress and will help us answer pertinent
   questions.

   A. Bhushan is studying a stage 1 type of network operation with
   extension in local catalogs to contain entries of network data sets
   of interest locally, to enable automatic calls to foreign data sets.



McKay & Mulleray                                                [Page 5]

RFC 316              Data Management Working Group         February 1972


   E. Perez will be studying the network catalog structure in more
   detail and will publish an RFC on her work.

   Many questions were raised about the use of the data language as a
   network standard.  There are two people that have volunteered writing
   up their investigations of this important study.

   Frank Ulmer will be looking at various data management systems to see
   if their data structures are describable in terms of the
   Datalanguage.  In addition, the NIC represents one important network
   data base that could be distributed through the network.  Dick Watson
   will try to describe the NLS Journal structure in terms of the
   Datalanguage.

   If there are any other people in the ARPA network or outside within
   hearing distance of this memo who may know about any real or
   potential applications of data sharing in a network, please submit an
   RFC in a letter to someone associated with the Data Management
   committee describing it.

Appendix -- Meeting Attendees

   William Benedict     USAFETAC Bldg. 159 Navy Yard Annex Wash. D.C.

   Roy Beveridge        MITRE

   Abhay Bhushan        MIT, Project Mac, Cambridge, Mass.

   Bob Brown            General Motors Research Lab.

   Elizabeth Fong       National Bureau of Standards, Wash. D.C.

   Ernie Forman         MITRE

   Glen Grazier         USAFETAC Bldg. 159 Navy Yard Annex Wash. D.C.

   Dorothy Hopkin       U. of Ill., Adv. Comp. Bldg., Urbana, Ill.

   Hector S. Maynez     National Library of Medicine

   Doug B. McKay        IBM Research Center

   Phil Messing         MITRE

   Al Mullery           IBM Research Center

   Erika Perez          MITRE




McKay & Mulleray                                                [Page 6]

RFC 316              Data Management Working Group         February 1972


   John Senior          Univ. of Penn. and National Board of Medical
                        Examiners, Phila. PA.

   Arie Shoshani        SDC, 2500 Colorado Ave., Santa Monica, Cal.

   Martin Snyderman     Smithsonian Science Info. Exch., Wash. D.C.

   Eric Swarthe         National Bureau of Standards, Wash. D.C.

   Suzanne Taylor       MITRE

   Bob Thomas           BBN

   Frank Ulmer          National Bureau of Standards, Wash. D.C.

   Dick Watson          SRI

   Richard Winter       Computer Corporation of America







        [This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry]
     [into the online RFC archives by H閘鑞e Morin, Viag閚ie 10/99]
























McKay & Mulleray                                                [Page 7]