[occi-wg] Core errata

[Sill, Alan]

I'll let the rest of the group comment on the technical content issues. Would just like to suggest that you keep your audience in mind - developers and implementers in this case. We just want to keep the right information in front if them. 

Obviously we do not want too fluid a process, or a spec that changes too often, but I do t think we should be afraid of the document revision/replacement or obsolescence process either. As long as things are kept in a clear, obvious state for imementation, we can do what we want. 

I'd say there is a clear line in terms of revisions that affect backwards compatibility and conformance. For clarifications, I think we can handle those through simple errata. Again, think of the implementers. We shouldn't be too shy of the new document or public comment process though; it is not too painful. 

Alan


On Sep 11, 2012, at 5:59 AM, "Ralf Nyren" <ralf at nyren.net> wrote:

> Hi Alan,
> 
> Thanks for the pointer to GFD.152.
> 
> Having read the definition I would say the proposed OCCI Core changes
> falls within Type 1 and 2, i.e. Editorial fixes and Minor technical fixes.
> 
> What do you others say?
> 
> I have split up the changes in different commit's so you can view them
> independently if you like.
> 
> The reason for pushing these changes is the upcoming JSON rendering (data
> format). JSON is better at exposing the full potential of the Core model
> and I believe due to this we found some minor issues with the Core document
> which needed fixing to have a consistent relationship between the Core and
> JSON specs.
> 
> As a bonus the changes makes the existing HTTP Rendering align better with
> Core as well. Having Action inherit Category is one such example.
> 
> regards, Ralf
> 
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 22:16:05 +0000, "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill at ttu.edu> wrote:
>> See pages 15 and 16 of GFD.152 for guidance as to how and when to use
> the
>> errata process as opposed to creation of a new document that obsoletes
> the
>> old one.
>> 
>> Note the OGF process is not tuned for publishing small incremental
>> updates, but instead is set up to facilitate production and maintenance
> of
>> completed standards documents.  that having been said, if the changes do
>> not affect conformance, they can often be incorporated in via errata
> (which
>> should nonetheless be rare and do require agreement among the
> corresponding
>> authors to request the change).
>> 
>> Hope this helps,
>> Alan
>> 
>> On Sep 3, 2012, at 3:17 PM, Andre Merzky <andre at merzky.net>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Michael Behrens
>>> <michael.behrens at r2ad.com> wrote:
>>>> Thanks - reading now...looks good.
>>>> Quick note: Recommend removal of GDF-P-R.183 from header to avoid
> reader
>>>> confusion, as the number would change and this is now a draft, right?
>>> 
>>> Since the changes are normative, the document number will have to
>>> change (which means the doc has to go through public review again).
>>> 
>>> Before submitting the document, please make sure that all open 'core'
>>> issues are addressed - I don't think it is a good idea to have new
>>> spec versions too often.
>>> 
>>> Best, Andre.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Also, line 126: change "Attribute describe" to "The Attribute type
>>>> describes"
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Ralf Nyren wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> 
>>>> I have update the Core document to include the changes discussed on
> the
>>>> last few confcalls.
>>>> 
>>>> The LaTeX changes are available from the core-errata branch in the
>>>> occi-wg
>>>> Git repository. Please find a compiled document attached.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Add a Attribute type to the Core Model
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> Many who have implemented the OCCI Core model already added an
> Attribute
>>>> type. This change formalise the notion of "attribute properties".
>>>> 
>>>> Instead of just saying an attribute have a name, an attribute now has
>>>> its
>>>> on Attribute type with both name an properties.
>>>> 
>>>> The new Attribute type is an *identifier* for resource attributes. It
>>>> does
>>>> not contain the attribute value. I.e. just as before.
>>>> 
>>>> A distinction has been added between "client discoverable attributes"
>>>> (called OCCI Attributes) and attributes internal to the model (called
>>>> model
>>>> attributes). occi.core.id, occi.core.source and occi.core.target have
>>>> been
>>>> changed back to the model attributes they were until shortly before
> HTTP
>>>> Rendering was released. These are determined to be model attributes
> and
>>>> thus receive special care in renderings.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Change Action to inherit Category
>>>> ---------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> The concept of Action representing the "invocable operation" itself is
>>>> removed. Instead an Action is just an *identifier* of the operation.
>>>> 
>>>> An Action instance identifies an invocable operation in much the same
>>>> way as a Kind instance identifies an Entity sub-type.
>>>> 
>>>> Impact on the existing HTTP Rendering (occi/1.1) is none. In fact the
>>>> text/ renderings already use "type=action" in its Category headers.
>>>> 
>>>> regards, Ralf
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> occi-wg mailing list
>>>> occi-wg at ogf.org
>>>> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Nothing is really difficult...
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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