[occi-wg] Categories and Collections

Gary Mazz garymazzaferro at gmail.com
Thu Oct 7 02:46:20 CDT 2010

Great work adding tags into the collections.

Adding tags may be  two edged sword. They allow "folksonomy" a path into 
occi, but tags may be used by providers to represent technical aspects 
of their infrastructure. This could be catastrophic for 
interoperability. For example, a provider elects to use tags to 
represent an OS instead of a template. As/if this practice continues, we 
may end up with tags de jour, crippling interoperability and devaluing 
formalized extensions.

We can minimize the impact by limiting tag usage to informative 
metadata, not impacting resource provisioning or operations. This would 
encourage providers to use extensions and provide a taxonomy for 
extension impacting interoperability.


On 10/6/2010 4:11 AM, Ralf Nyren wrote:
>> - Could we have some HTTP-rendering examples of how to add/remove Kind
>> instances to/from a collection other than the defining collection?
>> AE: I'll get some examples added asap.
> Good, I just want to make sure the add/remove collection tag thing does
> not end up with the same problems as we had with Links in the past.
>> AE: Ooops my mistake - Actions should not have been mentioned (I'll make
>> that edit). Paging through collections should be accomplished using Links
>> (e.g. in HTTP header renderings) as you point out. A beginning example
>> can
>> be found here [1] in section We need to make sure that the
>> current
>> incarnation of Links can accommodate this behavior.
> Implementing navigation using Link Headers should be easy, we can grab
> that part directly from the RFC and it will not conflict with the OCCI
> specific use of Link Headers.
> Regarding confusing terminology could we be _very_ consistent on using
> "Link Header" when we refer to RFC5988 and just "Link" when referring to
> the OCCI base type?
> I think we should at least consider renaming the OCCI Link base type to
> something else because the current situation will confuse people.
>> AE: we could use something like
>> "http://schemas.ogf.org/occi/core/collections#" as the scheme for tags?
> We could but Alex point of keeping the namespace clean is also important.
> Not sure which is best. Will there be only one Category for the collection
> stuff or will there be more (defined by Core) in the future?
> Speaking of user defined collections. How is the mix-in attribute
> occi.core.tag supposed to work when a user adds a Resource instance to 2
> or more collections?
> regards, Ralf
>> I will annotate the wiki page as well.
>> regards, Ralf
>> [1] http://forge.ogf.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.occi-wg/wiki/Link
>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 17:16:57 +0200, Andy Edmonds<andy at edmonds.be>  wrote:
>>> Hey all,
>>> I've placed a write up of how categories and collections related to each
>>> other. Also there is how one can interact with collections. I've tried
>>> to
>>> keep the description as non-rendering-specific as possible.
>>> http://forge.ogf.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.occi-wg/wiki/Collections
>>> If there are comments etc please annotate the wiki page at the
>>> appropriate
>>> place or place your questions in the "Open Issues" section.
>>> Andy
>>> andy.edmonds.be
>> _______________________________________________
>> occi-wg mailing list
>> occi-wg at ogf.org
>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg

More information about the occi-wg mailing list