[occi-wg] Renaming the "Link" base type

[Ralf Nyren]

As long as all parts of the spec are crystal clear on whether it is Link  
base type, HTTP Link Header, etc that is referred to I am fine with any  
name :-D

Let's say I have had to point out the importance of the distinction more  
than once... ;)

regards, Ralf

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 00:57:04 +0200, Edmonds, AndrewX  
<andrewx.edmonds at intel.com> wrote:

> I'd agree with what Alex positions - we still have a namespace (be it
> explicit or implicit) that is OCCI. Link is still good with me. If people
> get confused with HTTP Link and OCCI Link then perhaps they're reading  
> the
> wrong spec! :-p
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: occi-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:occi-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf  
> Of
> alexander.papaspyrou at tu-dortmund.de
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 6:33 PM
> To: ralf at nyren.net
> Cc: occi-wg at ogf.org
> Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Renaming the "Link" base type
>
> I'd vote for keeping "Link". Core should be clean, and not tailored to  
> some
> naming in the renderings. I know that, for HTTP, certain things are fix,  
> but
> I don't see such a danger for confusions, anyway.
>
> -Alexander
>
> Am 06.10.2010 um 16:33 schrieb Ralf Nyren:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> It is easy to confuse the OCCI "Link" base type with HTTP "Link Header"
>> and the general term of linking.
>>
>> Therefore it was proposed during today's conf call to rename the base
>> type "Link" to "ResourceLink". That way we let the name make clear
>> what the Link is used for, i.e. linking Resources.
>>
>> Would appreciate your comments. Deadline is on Friday.
>>
>> regards, Ralf
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> occi-wg mailing list
>> occi-wg at ogf.org
>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>