[occi-wg] Where is the scheme ?

[Ralf Nyren]

see below.

On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 07:46:36 +0200, Andre Merzky <andre at merzky.net> wrote:
> For
> example, I placed an empty document at
> http://schemas.ogf.org/occi/infrastructure, so that all GET operations
> on that document return an HTTP 200 (OK).  That provides a very simple
> way to confirm the validity of OCCI identifiers, and also provides a
> straight-forward way to register OCCI extensions (or rather, their
> namespaces).

Good idea! Maybe we should let this document include a short text that
says the schema format is still in progress or something?

There has been several discussion regarding exactly what should be found
at the schema URIs but nothing has yet been specified. I believe it was
said that the schema definition will have to wait until OCCI 1.1 has be
properly finished. Andy, Thijs, to you remember the rough time plan for
this?

> One could also link the normative documents for the
> extension at http://schemas.ogf.org/occi/infrastructure#specification;
> one could verify the #target elements; etc.  However, that is as of
> yet unspecified AFAICS, and is likely a rather naive proposal, given
> my somewhat limited knowledge of HTTP itself.

There is a little problem with the fragment part of the URI, i.e. the
#xxxx. According to the RFCs it is not part of the URL sent to the HTTP
server. It is something that the client has to handle by itself.

For example:
- Clicking on the http://schemas.ogf.org/occi/infrastructure#compute URL
in your favorite browser will yield an HTTP request as follows:
GET /occi/infrastructure HTTP/1.1

- In other words the _whole_ infrastructure "document" will be retrieved.
The client (in this case your browser) will attempt to translate the
#compute part into something useful with regard to the content-type of the
document received. In case of text/html it is to jump to the fragment
marker in the document.
- How to handle the URL fragments in a future OCCI schema definition must
be defined together with the format. However it is still the client which
has to do the processing.

regards, Ralf