[occi-wg] Renaming the "Link" base type
ralf at nyren.net
Thu Oct 7 05:30:57 CDT 2010
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
Let's say I have had to point out the importance of the distinction more
than once... ;)
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
More information about the occi-wg