[occi-wg] Another proposal on Linking

[Ralf Nyren]

> The reason for this is, rather than preaching of the "pure way of REST",  
> that extensibility in links in OCCI core makes them conceptually  
> resources in OCCI core. It then feels a bit awkward having the two  
> classes separate, if a link gets its own subcategories with attributes  
> and the like.
>
> The question is: what makes them different from Resources if we go that  
> path.

Indeed not much. Good point. But we will get back to the Link as a  
Resource discussion. I am mostly convinced a Link should be a resource now  
but there is still a few issues I would like to have sorted out. That will  
be a separate thread though.

> I would really see some kind of resource (one of those you called  
> "pseudo-resources") here. Of course, one would have to manage many more  
> resource objects then...

Could you perhaps make an example of what this would look like using my  
disk-controller-example for instance?

I am afraid there could be several issues regarding the lifecycle of these  
additional resources. They have little meaning when the Link does not  
exist etc. Any special semantics implied when tying these resources  
together with Links is also somewhat unclear.

> We will have to decide between those paradigms: either make Links  
> "Resources" (sort of), giving them subtypes and attributes and bells and  
> whistles, or go for the other approach, where many more things would be  
> modeled as (OCCI) Resources.

Exactly. I understand the first approach but I am still not sure what the  
other approach would look like in a real world scenario.

regards, Ralf