[occi-wg] All please read

[Alexis Richardson]

Sam,

Thank-you very much for posting this.  I agree that Tim's PDF is
insightful, and relevant to our situation.

ALL - please read Tim's deck linked to at the bottom of Sam's post.

alexis




On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net> wrote:
> Tim's presentation is insightful.
>
> Highlights (actually it's all good so this is most of the presentation):
>
> Use plain text if... you possibly can.
> JSON issues: Watch out for extensibility.
> Use JSON if... The expected lifetime of the data is short.
> Use XML if... your data is document flavoured or you're worried about i18n,
> extensibility or reusability.
> Inventing New XML Languages:
>
> Time-consuming.
> Bureaucratic.
> Difficult.
> Unpleasant.
> Includes complex software development as a sub-task.
> Usually fails.
> ... so try not to!
>
> Some Good XML Languages
>
> XHTML
> DocBook
> ODF
> Atom
> XMPP
> UBL
> RDF
>
> Design Issue: Model vs. Syntax
>
> “What matters is getting the data model right. The syntax is ephemeral.” vs
> “The bits on the wire are the only reality.”
>
> Design Issue: Minimalism vs. Completeness
>
> “Let’s solve the whole problem.”
> “Minimum progress required to declare victory.”
>
> XML Schema Definitions (XSD):
>
> Hard to understand, hard to implement, hard to interoperate.
> One of the reasons why the SOA/WS-* project is sinking.
>
> XML Extensibility: Three Options
>
> No changes.
> Must-Understand policy (e.g. as in SOAP).
> Must-Ignore policy (e.g. as in Atom).
>
> Morals of the story (IMO):
>
> Bend over backwards to use plain text (if we can)
> JSON is more interesting for RPC than ROA (Resource Oriented Architecture)
> Avoid inventing new [XML] languages at all costs
> 6 of the 7 "good" XML languages have already come up in the context of OCCI
> (NFI what UBL is)
> Model and bits-on-the-wire are both important to us
> RELAX NG and XPath is a GoodThing™
> For XML extensibility ignore that which you don't understand (ala Atom)
> Solve as much of the problem as we need to now but provide for extensibility
> later
>
> Sam
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Tim Bray <tbray at textuality.com>
> Date: 2009/5/27
> Subject: Re: Structured data over TCP?
> To: Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se>
> Cc: apps-discuss at ietf.org
>
>
> 2009/5/26 Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se>:
>
>> Do Apps Area have any general feeling about this?
>
> I was going to start typing in a lengthy answer but then I remembered
> I gave a tutorial at IETF70 on the choice of data formats for use in
> Internet Protocols.  It's centered around XML but I think covers many
> of the other issues that have come up in this.  Available for your
> reading pleasure at http://www.tbray.org/tmp/IETF70.pdf
>
>  -Tim
> _______________________________________________
> Apps-Discuss mailing list
> Apps-Discuss at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>
>