[occi-wg] JSON Rendering

[Ralf Nyren]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:03:44 +0000, "Edmonds Andrew (edmo)" <edmo at zhaw.ch>
wrote:
> After the git detour, inline...
> 
> On 26/06/2012 21:25, "Feldhaus, Florian" <florian.feldhaus at gwdg.de>
wrote:
> 
>>A short summary of the changes / open questions:
>>- should the description of locations and category namespaces go to OCCI
>>Core?
> 
> A modified version. Some of what's in the current text is more
appropriate
> for an experience document. I would only keep the contents of line 86.
The
> rest can go elsewhere. Also if someone wants to bind 'entity' to a
> namespace then I can't see why the spec should limit them.

I agree this is not suitable for the JSON data format spec but I still
believe it should go into OCCI HTTP.

The binding of Kind/Mixin instances (and thus the implied collections) is
fundamental to the OCCI HTTP Rendering. The recommendation part is also
nice IMO since it explains why certain names are used in the examples.

Line 90 is necessary to communicate whether the class described by a Kind
is instantiable.
Line 91 is just a conclusion from line 90 since OCCI Entity is explicitly
defined as an abstract class in OCCI Core.

> 
>>- should the Attribute Definition (or whatever we call it) go to OCCI
>>Core?
> 
> Yes, at least what's already there should be expanded upon.
> 
>>- how should applicable actions be associated with resources?
> 
> Please keep this as close to what we already have in text/plain.
> 
>>In 
>>text/plain this is done by linking to them. We discussed to include
>>actions as separate entry in resource but didn't specify how. Do we want
>>to do it? Should the resource contain a full rendering of the action?
>>Should we include an association between Resource and Action in OCCI
Core?
>>- should actions be rendered as part of links? Are there scenarios where
>>an action can be triggered on a link? If so, should we include an
>>association between Link and Action in OCCI Core?
> 
> Are there? In your view, what's a concrete usage of an action being
> applied on a link and does OCCI already support an alternative? I
remember
> we once talked about this way back in Brussels using the case of
> (de)activating a network link via action. This is perhaps one example
that
> might drive the use of link + action.

The published specs allow Actions on any Entity, i.e. both Resource and
Link.

regards, Ralf