[occi-wg] OCCI Core ready for public comment version

[Gary Mazz]

It took a few days to think about this new model. I think I have reached 
the same feeling about structural and non-structural types. From the 
language and the rules, it appears non-structural types are defining a 
domain/scope not residing in the occi core... While saying we are going 
to treat them like tags, but since they are out of scope ?? how do we 
interpret them ?

I don't think the the occi core is the correct place for adding support 
for extensions. The process of adding extensions is a different type of 
use case than modeling occi resources. Extensions requires a different 
UML diagram to define it. "An OCCI extension model."

This unstructured type should be removed from the core model.

-gary


On 11/8/2010 4:49 AM, Ralf Nyren wrote:
> Hi Michael, thanks for your feedback. Very good points you make. Reply
> below.
>
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 05:35:34 +0100, Michael Behrens
> <michael.behrens at r2ad.com>  wrote:
>
>> 2-cents: Structural and Non-Structural concept might be confusing to
>> folks
>> reading it the first time through. Perhaps its purpose (extensibility)
>> could be
>> stated before their definitions in a non normative manner. Lastly, would
>> adding
>> two subclass of kind (structured/unstructured) help clear things a bit?
>> (The
>> text seems to speak as if there are two subclasses).
> Perhaps an non-formal intro text in Core would solve this. We could put
> some more context behind the core model, why it exist etc, without going
> into the specifics. Any objections?
>
> Regarding structural/non-structural Kind the Kind type does not gain the
> structural/non-structural property until it is instantiated. The Core doc
> says in a few places that "a structural Kind" is an _instance_ of Kind
> etc. However, it can indeed still be quite confusing.
>
> Splitting Kind into two classes each inheriting Category might be a
> solution. That would automatically solve the issue that a non-structural
> Kind MUST NOT be related to a structural Kind. I'll see if I can draw up a
> UML example. Anyone else with an opinion on this?
>
> regards, Ralf
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>