[occi-wg] Incorporating units into OCCI

[Benjamin Black]

honestly, folks.  "native units of an industry"?  _this_ is a level of navel
contemplation indicative of not enough real problems to solve.

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Gary Mazz <garymazzaferro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Andre,
>
> Maybe I've misinterpreted what was proposed? I though if a particular
> industry infrastructure, like broadcast and telecom, natively uses a
> terminology like bits, the spec won't support their native terminology.
> For example cable channels, satellites and  mpeg is commonly referred to
> bits.
>
> By not supporting the native units of an industry, you infer that is not
> an industry your specification recognizes. I'm sure that's not the
> intent, but that is how it may be interpreted.
>
> -gary
>
>
> Andre Merzky wrote:
> > Quoting [Gary Mazz] (May 26 2009):
> >
> >> I think units are a very important issue. More significant than
> >> atom/json/xlm discussions. I think someone pushed a satellite  into
> >> mars  over a foot/meter  discrepancy.
> >>
> >> What  if its an e911 or other emergency application running on a cloud.
> >> It really helps to reduce operational risk with a page of text in a
> spec.
> >>
> >
> > I am not saying they are not important - but it does not
> > matter on *which* one you agree, as long as we agree on
> > something, and the spec is clear about that...
> >
> > Andre.
> >
> >
> >
> >> -gary
> >>
> >> Andre Merzky wrote:
> >>
> >>> Oh well...  - you can't make everybody happy.  At the end
> >>> one needs to decide on one of the options, and either way,
> >>> just getting rid of units (by defining them as fixed) seems
> >>> like a good solution.  As others stated: a UI can always
> >>> represent a more suitable version...
> >>>
> >>> A
> >>>
> >>> Quoting [Gary Mazz] (May 26 2009):
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Just as an fyi, media folks work in "bits"
> >>>>
> >>>> -gary
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Andre Merzky wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Quoting [Sam Johnston] (May 26 2009):
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> a 4th option, which i rather prefer since the units stuff tends to
> be
> >>>>>>> relevant to and consumed by humans via UI rather than machines via
> >>>>>>> API,
> >>>>>>> is not to use units at all.
> >>>>>>> <memory>2147483648</memory>
> >>>>>>> either of the above is far easier to transform to and from non-XML
> >>>>>>> representations, in my experience, with the latter being zero
> effort.
> >>>>>>> a couple extra bytes won't harm us and we adhere to my first
> >>>>>>> engineering rule: the best solution to a problem is not to have it
> in
> >>>>>>> the first place.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>  Andy and I spent a few hours on the phone tonight getting ourselves
> >>>>>>  aligned and this was basically the conclusion we came to as well
> >>>>>>  (though we were talking about choosing e.g. megabytes for memory,
> >>>>>>  gigabytes for disk and gigahertz for processors).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I think that is a great compromise: simple format, + human
> >>>>> readable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Andre.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20090526/3a1351b9/attachment.html