[occi-wg] OCCI Categories and Types
ralf at nyren.net
Mon Aug 16 10:10:48 CDT 2010
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 07:23:35 +0200, Gary Mazz <garymazzaferro at gmail.com>
> 1) The use of multiple schemes and multiple attributes, permissible in
> headers may cause significant rendering and referential issues in the
> body. I'm fairly confident most parsers will have problems with this
> approach. If this scheme is also intended for a body, I'll create and
> example to examine the doms
I am not sure I understand, could you give a simple example perhaps?
> I think before we start producing examples using extensions, we should
> define the types of extension permitted and define where they are placed
> in the model scheme.
As far as I understand we have, depending how you see things, a single
namespace for attributes. If we go with the latest proposal and say that a
Category can define a set of attributes we indeed need a policy on how
these names should be constructed.
Without to much thought put into this I would suggest a policy maybe like
Any reverse domain starting with "occi" would be forbidden and only used
be standard OCCI attributes.
Another alternative could be:
Example: Let's say a provider need a few extra attributes to describe a
compute resource, in this case the desired boot priority.
Category: compute; scheme="http://schemas.ogf.org/occi/resource#";
Category: compute; scheme="http://provider.com/occi/resource#";
title="Vendor Compute Resource Extensions"
Would that make sense?
More information about the occi-wg