[occi-wg] OCCI Categories and Types

[Ralf Nyren]

> Agreed. This was just a quick and dirty thing. As soon as things merge  
> into the "real" pages (core, infra or http), we have to take care of  
> that.

Ok, sorry for being picky. It just that I have come to read many different  
OCCI examples from various documents where the examples seem to always  
vary in some small aspects and it is hard to tell what is significant and  
what is not.

>>> That way, you don't have to analyze the details of a REST resource,  
>>> but just look at the MIME type delivered by the OCCI container.
>>
>> If just for the purpose of the example I can somewhat agree. Otherwise  
>> I would say the Content-type header only reflect the body and not what  
>> kind of information you happen to have in the header.
>
> Well, we will have to discuss this. I think that it would be good to use  
> the content type for indicating what kind of type from the core model is  
> currently shown; on the other hand, you are right: the MIME type  
> indicates the content of the HTTP request/response.

I disagree, but we will have to discuss this of course.
In older versions of the spec there are examples showing responses in  
application/ovf format. I think it is flexible to allow the response to a  
request to be returned in multiple formats. You should always provide the  
headers of course but the body could be plain/text, application/json, or  
whatever the client put in its Accept: header.

> No, but the "rel" item allows the registration of new terms ("category")  
> in a defined manner.

Ah, indeed. So what semantic difference would the use of  "category" have  
in this case?
Link: <...>; rel="http://scheme/xxx"
vs
Link: <...>; rel="category http://scheme/xxx"

I.e. what are you trying to achieve here?

regards, Ralf