[occi-wg] Categories and Collections
andy.edmonds at gmail.com
Thu Oct 7 03:14:20 CDT 2010
Good point - add something like "MUST only be used to relay
informative metadata" to the section on tags?
On 7 Oct 2010, at 09:46, Gary Mazz <garymazzaferro at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>> be found here  in section 126.96.36.199. We need to make sure that the
>>> 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
>>>  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
>>>> keep the description as non-rendering-specific as possible.
>>>> If there are comments etc please annotate the wiki page at the
>>>> place or place your questions in the "Open Issues" section.
>>> occi-wg mailing list
>>> occi-wg at ogf.org
>> occi-wg mailing list
>> occi-wg at ogf.org
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
More information about the occi-wg