[occi-wg] Voting result

Sat May 9 06:33:14 CDT 2009

Richard,

(+Krishna, +Colleen)

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Richard Davies
<richard.davies at elastichosts.com> wrote:
> The list has thankfully gone quiet, so I've recounted the votes since my
> previous post. We are now at:
>
>  10 JSON, 5 XML, 2 TXT
>
> I don't consider this as a vote for a decision, but do think it has drawn
> out a lot of opinions and shown the lay of the land more clearly - in the
> light of the votes, the only two viable options are:
>
> - 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).

I shall post separately a defence of the "single format for
interoperability" position.

> 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.

I think it is essential that a JSON rendering is produced, treating it
as a primary format for interop on the wire.  This is the case,
regardless of any other aspects of this discussion.

One good reason is: Those of us proposing JSON as a primary format
cannot expect a fair hearing from the XML-preferring folks unless this
rendering is concrete, visible and examinable in its specifics.

> 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

OK.

So on the model - I am asking everyone to take future Model
discussions into a separate thread.  Please.  And where possible - put
it on the wiki and refer to that in your email.  Let's keep the emails
short and on one point at a time please, if possible.  I'm going to go
through a few emails on this thread with the same requests - park it,
move it onto another thread, etc.

> 2) The JSON vs. XML debate is not just about angle-brackets vs.
> curly-brackets.

Agreed.

Indeed: The argument that "JSON and XML differ only in their syntax,
therefore one must be better than the other", implies that when
considering JSON vs XML, syntax should be the primary concern.  But
syntax has nothing to do with interop, which is about data.  Syntax
has a lot to do with integration, which is a whole 'nother thing.  I
think at least 50% of our recent debates have failed to correctly
separate integration from interop., and that mixing the two is one way
to get you into a WS-mess.  More on this on another thread.

> Amongst the XML supporters, I have seen little opposition to a GData/Atom
> meta-model around the nouns/verbs/attributes. [Tim Bray, who co-chaired the
> IETF Atom working group, felt it was the wrong choice, but then he doesn't
> support using XML at all in this context]
>
> However, many(/all?) of the JSON supporters seem to want a lighter
> meta-model around the nouns/verbs/attributes. For instance, they would
> probably prefer fixed actuator URLs to passing these in the feed, and would
> likely transmit flatter hashes of noun attributes rather than following Atom
> conventions the structure of links, attributes, etc. within an object.

I think this is the second and possibly more fundamental area of disagreement.

* The former crew see the verbs primarily as CRUD, and the *resource*
metamodel as resource links.

* The latter want a more RESTful approach (not just CRUD/HTTP), in
which the *application* metamodel is commingled with the protocol
itself and the execution of the application model is hypertext
navigation (HATEOAS).

* Recall that "A REST API should be entered with no prior knowledge
beyond the initial URI (bookmark) and set of standardized media types
that are appropriate for the intended audience (i.e., expected to be
understood by any client that might use the API). …"

I think this is a sufficiently interesting discussion that we should
take it onto a separate thread. There are a number of concerns and
ideas all kicking around: feeds, performance of multiple calls, how to
scale to deal with huge collections, the possible relevance of and
integration into GData, and how we'd like to convince Google to get
involved.  Let's move ALL this onto a new thread please.  Again - keep
your emails short or at least split them into specific points.
Please.

> Thanks to Ben Black, Andy Edmonds:
> http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000395.html
> http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000420.html
>
> My conclusion from this is that we should not develop the JSON rendering in
> terms of an XSLT transform from the XML rendering, and should not go for
> "GData-JSON". We will need these automatic transforms eventually, but we
> should develop the JSON rendering in its own right, thinking about what
> works well for JSON, and then later work out how we'll auto transform back
> and forth.

FOR NOW ... I want us to focus on:

* Model - nouns, verbs etc
* Interoperability

This can be deemed OCCI-DRAFT-0-1

DISCUSSION points:

* Metamodel (interesting but could take time)
* Integration

As mentioned I think we have been mixing Integration with
Interoperability and this is bad.

> Do the 10 JSON supporters agree with this, or have I misjudged it and there
> is actually strong support for GData-JSON?

Separate thread please.

> Myself and Chris would be happy to lead developing the JSON rendering it its
> own right if people agree with my statements above and hence that it does
> need independent development (from the same set of nouns/verb/attributes and
> semantics).

Please could you do that.  I think it needs development.  Not sure
about 'independent'.. there is no need to go off on your own,
leadership involves dialogue please :-)

> 3) I suggest we(/I!) stop discussing TXT for now. If we go multi-format then
> we should probably have it, but Chris has demonstrated how it can be
> trivially transformed back and forth from JSON.
>
> http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000451.html

Agreed.  Let's park TXT.  Thanks Chris.

And thanks Richard - good summary.  Please crack on guys!

alexis

> ==========================================
>
> JSON: 10
> - Alexis Richardson http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000405.html
> - Andy Edmonds http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000420.html
> - Ben Black http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000395.html
> - Krishna Sankar http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000455.html
> - Mark Masterson http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000440.html
> - Michael Richardson (private mail to me)
> - Randy Bias? (JSON listed first at http://wiki.gogrid.com/wiki/index.php/API:Anatomy_of_a_GoGrid_API_Call)
> - Richard Davies http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000409.html (split EH vote)
> - Tino Vazquez? http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000411.html
> - Tim Bray http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000418.html
>
> XML: 5
> - Chuck W http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000448.html
> - Gary Mazz http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000470.html
> - Kristoffer Sheather http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000430.html
> - Sam Johnston http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000381.html
> - William Vambenepe http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000396.html
>
> TXT: 2
> - Andre Merzky http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000447.html
> - Chris Webb http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000409.html (split EH vote)
>
> Single: 3
> - Benjamin Black http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000457.html
> - Tim Bray http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000418.html
> - Richard Davies (revised in light of Tim Bray's comments)
>
> Multi: 3
> - Gary Mazz http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000458.html
> - Marc-Elian Begin http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000439.html
> - Sam Johnston http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000445.html
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>