[occi-wg] JSON Rendering

[Ralf Nyren]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 02:24:15 -0600, Gary Mazz <garymazzaferro at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I agree with separate sections.. I think.. I need to see a simple
example..

\section{OCCI Kind}

{
  "scheme": *string*,
  "term": *string*",
  ...
}

\section{OCCI Link}

{
  "kind": *string*,
  "source": *string*,
  "target": *string*,
  "attributes": *object*,
  ...
}

 
> The resource, link and category are 3 different views and need to be 
> defined in detail.

+2 for detailed definition!

/Ralf

> 
> -gary
> 
> On 5/3/2012 2:10 AM, Ralf Nyren wrote:
>> Looks like Florian commited a work-in-progress version. There are still
>> content from the previous version which has not been updated. The media
>> type of the discovery interface serialization for example.
>>
>> I would find it easier to read if we described the serialization of
each
>> OCCI type (Kind, Mixin, Resource, Link, Action) in a separate
subsection
>> for each one.
>>
>> Then a final section could described the actual JSON format sent on the
>> wire which is a combination of the serialization of the OCCI types. It
>> would follow the same pattern as how the HTTP doc uses ABNF to describe
>> the
>> individual headers and then shows how they are put together.
>>
>> For the JSON example structures it would be nice to drop the example
>> content and just write the JSON type in italics. Instead of:
>>   "title": "My example title",
>> just specify:
>>   "title": *string*
>> (where *xxx* means italic)
>>
>> This way it would be very clear what part of the JSON is static
keywords
>> and what is variable content.
>>
>> regards, Ralf
>>
>> On Wed, 02 May 2012 23:25:08 -0400, Michael Behrens
>> <michael.behrens at r2ad.com>  wrote:
>>> In reviewing the latest sent out...here a few nit-noids...which Gary
may
>>> have already corrected....
>>>
>>> -    In section 5.1, I see two JSON examples....looks like a second
one
>>> starts on line 113.  Perhaps a description of the second one would
help
>>> separate the two. Or am I reading it
>>> wrong?
>>> -    in that JSON, there are some extra spaces showing up after "http:
>> ".
>>> Lines 88, 90, 91, 97
>>> -    Line 106, missing comma at end of line (I think)
>>> -    Looks like the JSON in section 5.2 is split up - perhaps the
tables
>>> should follow the JSON - presumably.
>>>
>>> I like the usage of the pattern attribute...that will help with client
>>> side validation :)
>>>
>>> - Michael B.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> occi-wg mailing list
>>> occi-wg at ogf.org
>>> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg