[occi-wg] OCCI Core Errata Draft (update)

[Andre Merzky]

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Augusto Ciuffoletti
<augusto at di.unipi.it> wrote:
> The point is:  is an extensive rewording compatible with document stability
> (maybe also reputation)? I think we should take a decision about this first.
> The next step is simply a s/resource/anything/g.

my $0.02, clarity and correctness are better than stability.

A.


> Augusto
>
>
> 2012/10/29 Ralf Nyren <ralf at nyren.net>
>>
>> Hi Augusto,
>>
>> You really pointed out a weak spot in the spec. I have been rather unhappy
>> with the "resource instance" terminology for quite some time (although I
>> am
>> probably the one to blame for it being introduced in the first place ;)
>>
>> Your suggestion to put in a clarification the first time "resource
>> instance" is mentioned is the least we can do. I will include that in the
>> next Core draft update.
>>
>> However, I have been thinking if we could try and fix this with some more
>> clever wording. The basic problem is that we want a common name for
>> instances of both OCCI Resource, OCCI Link and any sub-type derived from
>> them. But _not_ an instance of Entity itself since it is an abstract
>> class.
>>
>> We could probably say "entity instance" instead of "resource instance". It
>> would still not be optimal since you cannot instantiate OCCI Entity but at
>> least the confusion about OCCI Link would be eliminated.
>>
>> What do you all think?
>>
>> regards, Ralf
>>
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:10:15 +0200, Augusto Ciuffoletti
>> <augusto at di.unipi.it> wrote:
>> > Ralf,
>> >
>> > A note about the Mixin section (sect. 4.4.4), which is fact extends to
>> > (r|R)esource definition.
>> >
>> > Throughout the whole section the doc explains the relationship of mixins
>> > with (r)esource instances. But the term resource is overloaded: lower
>> case
>> > and followed by {instance} it is an instance of an Entity, upper case is
>> > one of the two Entity subtypes. The reader may have the (wrong)
>> impression
>> > that Links (the other subtype) cannot be associated with Mixins. The
>> > picture is complicated by the fact that (R)esources are defined in a
>> > following section, and forward references degrade readability. The fact
>> > that Figure 2 explains that mixins can be associated with Entities (not
>> > only Resources), and that the glossary is even more explicit about that
>> > does not help enough the first-time reader.
>> >
>> > If you agree with me, one way to solve the problem is to state
>> explicitly
>> > the overloading. I'd add two sentences: one the first time the term
>> > (r)esource is used, and another when the entity is defined. The sentence
>> > should be an explicit warning: "A {\em resource instance} must not be
>> > confused with the {\em Resource}, as it will be defined in section..."
>> > since the possibility of a misunderstanding is real (in my experience
>> :-)).
>> > A pointer to the glossary can be helpful.
>> >
>> > Thank you
>> >
>> > Augusto
>> >
>> > 2012/10/1 Ralf Nyren <ralf at nyren.net>
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I have updated the OCCI Core document to include the feedback on the
>> last
>> >> errata draft.
>> >>
>> >> Please find a PDF attached and refer to the Git commit log [1] for
>> >> details.
>> >>
>> >> The document now contains an Errata Summary and is (in my view) close
>> to
>> >> its final state. If you have any pending corrections for OCCI Core now
>> is
>> >> the time to speak up!
>> >>
>> >> Very important to read and provide feedback on the Core errata update
>> and
>> >> the JSON Rendering spec.
>> >>
>> >> regards, Ralf
>> >>
>> >> [1] http://redmine.ogf.org/**projects/occi-wg/repository/**
>> >>
>>
>> revisions/core-errata/changes/**core.tex<http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/core-errata/changes/core.tex>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:54:48 +0200, Feldhaus, Florian <
>> >> florian.feldhaus at gwdg.de> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>  Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> I just spoke with Thijs and we would suggest to skip the TelCo today
>> and
>> >>> encourage everyone to join the TelCo next week 18:00 CET. We would
>> like
>> >>> to
>> >>> discuss all remaining issues with the OCCI Core and OCCI JSON
>> documents
>> >>> and
>> >>> then prepare them for submission to the OGF review process.
>> >>>
>> >>> It is very important, that everyone checks the documents again. The
>> >>> latest versions of the documents can be found here:
>> >>> http://redmine.ogf.org/**projects/occi-wg/repository/**
>> >>>
>>
>> revisions/core-errata/changes/**core.tex<http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/core-errata/changes/core.tex>
>> >>> http://redmine.ogf.org/**projects/occi-wg/repository/**
>> >>>
>>
>> revisions/json/changes/json_**rendering.tex<http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/json/changes/json_rendering.tex>
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>> Florian
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> occi-wg mailing list
>> >> occi-wg at ogf.org
>> >> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>> >>
>> >>
>> _______________________________________________
>> occi-wg mailing list
>> occi-wg at ogf.org
>> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>
>
>
>
> --
> Augusto Ciuffoletti
> Dipartimento di Informatica
> Università di Pisa
> 56100 - Pisa (Italy)
>
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>



-- 
Nothing is really difficult...