[occi-wg] OCCI Categories and Types

[Andy Edmonds]

Inline...

On 13 Aug 2010, at 15:01, Ralf Nyren wrote:

>> 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.

You are totally right to be so and it's very welcomed :-) Just bear in mind that the canonical documents are those currently on the wiki. Those that are found on google code are not and serve only as a past record.

> 
>>>> 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.

Good and fair point. Maintaining the capability to send content types like OVF is highly desirable.

> 
>> 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?

Here the want was to indicate the Link's target type and that it was a defined by a Category with a canonical schema could be identified by the URI.

> 
> regards, Ralf
> 
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg