[occi-wg] Where is the scheme ?

[Ralf Nyren]

Afaik no formal scheme has been defined yet. The upcoming json rendering provides more info in the query interface and could be a (although not optimal) candidate.

When Andre set this up we decided on just returning an empty page as a sort of boolean indicator that the category is defined in the spec.

Regards, Ralf 

Alan Sill <Alan.Sill at ttu.edu> wrote:

>Revisiting this issue... I was testing some schemata today and stumbled acros a permissions error related to the lack of anything at 
>
>http://schemas.ogf.org/occi/
>
>That is fixed now, and all we have configured in the tree below is that both of the following URIs will return an empty (blank) document.
>
>http://schemas.ogf.org/occi/core
>http://schemas.ogf.org/occi//infrastructure
>
>Is this correct, and are any further changes needed for consistency?
>
>Thanks,
>Alan
>
>
>On Apr 6, 2011, at 1:54 AM, Ralf Nyren wrote:
>
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> occi-wg mailing list
>> occi-wg at ogf.org
>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>