[occi-wg] confusion about status of link / headers

[gary mazzaferro]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Alexis Richardson <
> alexis.richardson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Alexis Richardson
>> >
>> > Trying to build a standard from scratch is like trying to work out what
>> > colour to paint the bikeshed, as evidenced by discussions like this.
>>
>> Yes, when we formed OCCI we agreed to minimise invention of new
>> technology - obviously this is a 'judgement call'.  The chairs should
>> apply this principle when facilitating consensus.
>>
>
> I think it's best you stick to calling the consensus based on discussions,
> which hopefully you will also be contributing to (there's no harm in wearing
> both hats if you keep the roles separate).
>

Agreed, consensus and discussion is need to  follow though on decisions. The
lack of discussion due the parties not engaging is not  considered
consensus.

>
> Such a "test" is highly subjective and easily [ab]used to short circuit
> consensus and/or suppress ideas you don't personally understand or
> appreciate.
>

Do we need some sort of certification to properly "appreciate" ideas ?


> Case in point is the unjustified claim that using HTTP headers for metadata
> is somehow experimental "new technology" when it was explicitly defined for
> this purpose by RFC2068 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#section-7.1>over a decade ago and used extensively since
>
>
> Entity-header fields define optional metainformation about the entity-body
>> or, if no body is present, about the resource identified by the request.
>>
>
> Conversely the creation of a domain-specific language for each and every
> resource that we need to represent (at least 3 for infrastructure, 5-10+ for
> platforms and an infinite number for applications) and somehow keeping that
> in sync with authorative "native" representations like OVF is *far* more
> experimental, error prone and ultimately likely to fail.
>

Defining a set of data sequences or a new organization of key/value pairs
(as with occi) is a new DSL. It doesn't matter if its in a document or http
headers.

-gary

>
> Sam
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20091019/3c16251b/attachment.html