[occi-wg] Simple JSON rendering for OCCI

[Sam Johnston]

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Andre Merzky <andre at merzky.net> wrote:

> Quoting [Sam Johnston] (May 15 2009):
> >   * Adopt AtomPub (+search, caching, etc.) as OCCI Core - lots of hard
> >     work already done (the alternative will almost certainly involve
> >     another OGF cycle, pushing the final delivery out to OGF 28 which
> >     is yet to be scheduled in 2010)
>
> Looks good to me.  Although Atom, which you favour, is still
> not decided upon ;-)  Anyway, procedure and timeline look
> sensible, IMHO.
>

I'm *acutely* aware that Atom is still not decided upon - I'm the one who
has the privilege of personally paying for a plane to prague (say that 3
times quickly!) to stand in front of an audience and tell everyone where
we're at remember... drop AtomPub and I've got very little to talk about
beyond the fact that we're on track to fail to deliver on our first
deadline. Fun.

For JSON (or any non-Atom format for that matter) you don't have these
20,000+ <http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4287.txt>
words<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5023>as a head start so I find it
hard to imagine there's not at least one or two
extra OGF cycles to factor in. To be safe you might even consider adopting
Thijs' original
timeline<http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/capi-bof/2009-March/000027.html>as
the compressed version factored in the significant optimisation
(albeit
not deliberately/explicitly):

*Goals/Deliverables: *
OGF25: BoF session and group discussion
OGF26: Group presentations / Spin-off of standardization work.
OGF27: Document (#1) describing use cases and giving an overview of the
current state of art / First draft of an API.
OGF28: Document defining entities to be managed, their life-cycle and the
associated processes to manage the life-cycle (#2)
OGF29: Standardized API (#3)
OGF30: Refinements
OGF31: Final version of an API

Does anyone seriously think there'll still be a window for OCCI to be
relevant in 2011/2012 with the rate things are moving? That's what I
thought.

The point is we can still deliver on our promises by relying on AtomPub and
pushing the feedback period to post-OGF26 to make up for lost time...
alternatively you might just be able to squeeze in an implementable draft by
OGF27 and final version by OGF28 "around March 2010" but I wouldn't rely on
it and I wouldn't rely on it still being relevant - who knows, you might
even end up being forced to implement DMTF's stuff because the "I can't
believe it's not cloud" guys have got their ducks in a row before us ;)

FWIW, OGF28 should be around March 2010.
>

If we've got our final version done by OGF27 (October 2009) then we can get
to work on migrating to JSON (JSONPub anyone?) and with any luck drag the
rest of the industry over with us through 2010/2011. Iff it makes sense to
do so of course - AtomPub is plenty light enough IMO and much lighter starts
to be flying too close to the ground (conversely, add schemas, namespaces
etc. to JSON and you end up with XML with curly braces!).


> > One non-technical point to consider when it comes to things like
> > registries is that using neutral ground like IANA make the standard far
> > more likely to be adopted by other SSOs.
>
> Yes, good point.
>

Glad we agree - this was one point that worried me a bit about dragging the
attention towards a specific SSO outside of IETF...

Sam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20090515/a3415719/attachment.html