[occi-wg] Renaming the "Link" base type
andy.edmonds at gmail.com
Thu Oct 7 05:35:51 CDT 2010
In that case those (incl myself possibly) acting as editor need to
qualify and scope all mentions of HTTP-Link via canonical reference.
On 7 Oct 2010, at 11:31, "Ralf Nyren" <ralf at nyren.net> wrote:
> As long as all parts of the spec are crystal clear on whether it is Link
> base type, HTTP Link Header, etc that is referred to I am fine with any
> name :-D
> Let's say I have had to point out the importance of the distinction more
> than once... ;)
> regards, Ralf
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 00:57:04 +0200, Edmonds, AndrewX
> <andrewx.edmonds at intel.com> wrote:
>> I'd agree with what Alex positions - we still have a namespace (be it
>> explicit or implicit) that is OCCI. Link is still good with me. If people
>> get confused with HTTP Link and OCCI Link then perhaps they're reading
>> wrong spec! :-p
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: occi-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:occi-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf
>> alexander.papaspyrou at tu-dortmund.de
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 6:33 PM
>> To: ralf at nyren.net
>> Cc: occi-wg at ogf.org
>> Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Renaming the "Link" base type
>> I'd vote for keeping "Link". Core should be clean, and not tailored to
>> naming in the renderings. I know that, for HTTP, certain things are fix,
>> I don't see such a danger for confusions, anyway.
>> Am 06.10.2010 um 16:33 schrieb Ralf Nyren:
>>> It is easy to confuse the OCCI "Link" base type with HTTP "Link Header"
>>> and the general term of linking.
>>> Therefore it was proposed during today's conf call to rename the base
>>> type "Link" to "ResourceLink". That way we let the name make clear
>>> what the Link is used for, i.e. linking Resources.
>>> Would appreciate your comments. Deadline is on Friday.
>>> regards, Ralf
>>> occi-wg mailing list
>>> occi-wg at ogf.org
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
More information about the occi-wg