[occi-wg] Voting result

[Benjamin Black]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net> wrote:

>
> - Single-format: JSON
>> - Multi-format: JSON + XML + ?TXT
>>
>> The list has also been fairly evenly split on whether multiple format
>> support makes sense or not (independent of the choice of the single
>> format).
>>
>
> The point is that there is significant support for multiple formats so
> multiple formats should be supported even if only as a convenience for
> disparate audiences (see Ben Black's comments on this topic).
>

I said the exact opposite: multiple formats creates complexity (either by
requiring everyone support all formats or by allowing mutually incompatible
yet compliant implementations) with little benefit.


> Trim the formats and you trim the audience and with it the potential for
> success. I definitely think we need to focus on one and give mechanical
> transforms as a convenience for the others though, which essentially
> addresses Ben's concerns about interoperability problems.
>
>

This approach does not address my concerns so much as amplify them.


> I see three conclusions going forward:
>>
>> 1) Continue our specification in terms of the model (nouns, verbs,
>> attributes, semantics of these, how these are linked together) with both
>> JSON and XML renderings of this being explored on the wiki. We can decide
>> later if we run with both or just JSON.
>>
>
> There is no "later"... I need to have my presentation for Prague submitted
> and a coherent format to discuss with SNIA by Wednesday. That's not to say
> the model is perfect but it doesn't have to be for us to move on - the
> wrinkles will iron themselves out with people cutting code between OGF 26
> (in under 3 weeks) and OGF 27 (in under 6 months). There is huge value in
> raising awareness/familiarity amongst potential users as early as possible
> (release early, release often and all that). I'll be promoting OCCI in
> London and Paris in the coming weeks too, provided I still believe it's
> going to work.
>

Arbitrary deadlines based on having to give a presentation probably not the
best way to produce quality solutions.


>
> There is still work here - e.g. verbs and attributes on networks have not
>> been specified, nor have we agreed fully the _model_ of how we link
>> servers
>> to storage and networks.
>>
>> Thanks to Alexander Papaspyrou, Andy Edmonds:
>> http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000461.html
>> http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000444.html
>>
>
> The model is extremely simple - a compute resource can have zero or more
> network resources and zero or more storage resources. It gets hairy when you
> start considering that all three can be virtualised in which case there will
> be use cases which require going back to the physical devices, and that's
> why we need to support absolutely flexible linking between resources
> (something that Atom is particularly good at).
>
> 2) The JSON vs. XML debate is not just about angle-brackets vs.
>> curly-brackets.
>>
>
> I'm unconvinced that this has been demonstrated and still see it as 100%
> religion and bikeshed painting. Were we abusing XML then fair enough, but
> we're not - any simpler and it's plain text.
>
>

What you have convinced me of is that this is your clubhouse and the rest of
us mere ornament so OCCI can appear to be a legitimate "consensus-based
standards group".   Not my cup of tea.


Ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20090508/de176c4c/attachment.html