[occi-wg] Update of Link Header Rendering

[Gary Mazz]

Comments in line

Ralf Nyren wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 04:15:08 +0200, Michael Behrens  
> <michael.behrens at r2ad.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> 1) Wikipedia reference to REST...for the spec, is there a normative  
>> publication that can be used?  Perhaps  
>> http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/top.htm
>>     
>
> You are right, the wikipedia reference should be replace/removed when this  
> information is moved into the real specification.
>   
I agree, all references to wikipedia should be removed (something I've 
attempted in the past and met with resistance) . Wikipedia references 
are unstable and some of marginal quality. We should move to reference 
the "real" specification along with specifying version  and date.

>   
>> 2) What should a client do with links that do not present a category?   
>> For instance, if a storage category is specified, clients could group it  
>> with other storage elements, etc.  Perhaps implementers SHOULD provide  
>> categories if they are known.
>>     
>
> A Link is always associated with at least one Category, i.e.  
> http://schemas.ogf.org/occi/core#link. The same is true for Resources as  
> well.
>
> If you are referring to the "Minimal HTTP Link Header rendering" of  
> Resources, where only the Link target is provided, I would say a client  
> has to issue a separate GET request for the target to determine the type  
> (set of categories).
>   
This is correct.. The client would have to issue individual get requests 
for each occi resource target. It will be much more interesting with 
links to external systems, especially non-http implementations. I'm, 
still mulling over the credential comments from Wed, 9.01.2010 meeting.
> Maybe the minimal rendering is not very useful, should we remove it and  
> always require target type information in link rendering? If so, with the  
> case of multiple categories, which categories MUST be displayed and which  
> can be left out (if any)?
>   
IMO, the minimal rendering has never been useful in terms of usability. 
Little work has been done accessing  a level of interoperability to 
define a  "minimal rendering".  The "minimal rendering" may conflict 
with current definitions  of mandatory attributes.

I believe the "minimal rendering" is redundant should be removed from 
these OCCI specifications. The "minimal rendering" is already defined by 
the specification's mandatory definitions.

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20100902/9f71bd68/attachment.html