[occi-wg] Core errata

[Ralf Nyren]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:05:11 +0000, "Feldhaus, Florian"
<florian.feldhaus at gwdg.de> wrote:

>> 
>> For the sake of backward compatibility I agree we probably cannot
require
>> Entity.ID to be a UUID. A "SHOULD" is an acceptable compromise IMO.
> 
> ok, could you update the OCCI draft then?

Sure. I will add that together with the appendix summarizing the errata
changes.

>> Just to clarify, do you think that OCCI Core should recommend a
specific
>> format of the Entity IDs as well?
>> 
>> I mean, even if Entity.ID is a UUID there are multiple ways to
represent
>> a
>> UUID. E.g. canonical form, binary format, URN, etc.
>> 
>> Having a specific ID format specified directly in OCCI Core would
>> definitely help with consistency across renderings. However from a
>> technical perspective I think the particular UUID format to use should
be
>> up to the rendering.
> 
> Currently the ID format is specified to be the URI format. I wouldn't
> change that for this revision.   

So, it would be up to the implementation to decide whether to render
Entity.ID
as e.g. a URN or an URL with a UUID at the end? (URI = URL | URN)

Strictly speaking if Entity.ID is a URI, the following would not be valid
right?

{ 
  ...
  id: "1b1fcb26-b675-4827-a479-ad77382f51a6"
}

(taken from the JSON data format examples)

It would have to be "urn:uuid:1b1fcb26-b675-4827-a479-ad77382f51a6"
instead if I understood the RFC.

regards, Ralf