On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Sam Johnston
<samj@samj.net> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Sam Johnston <
samj@samj.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Alexis Richardson
>
> Trying to build a standard from scratch is like trying to work out what
> colour to paint the bikeshed, as evidenced by discussions like this.
Yes, when we formed OCCI we agreed to minimise invention of new
technology - obviously this is a 'judgement call'. The chairs should
apply this principle when facilitating consensus.
I think it's best you stick to calling the consensus based on discussions, which hopefully you will also be contributing to (there's no harm in wearing both hats if you keep the roles separate).
Agreed, consensus and discussion is need to follow though on decisions. The lack of discussion due the parties not engaging is not considered consensus.
Such a "test" is highly subjective and easily [ab]used to short circuit consensus and/or suppress ideas you don't personally understand or appreciate.
Do we need some sort of certification to properly "appreciate" ideas ?
Case in point is the unjustified claim that using HTTP headers for metadata is somehow experimental "new technology" when it was explicitly defined for this purpose by
RFC2068 over a decade ago and used extensively since
Entity-header fields define optional metainformation about the entity-body or, if no body is present, about the resource identified by the request.
Conversely the creation of a domain-specific language for each and every resource that we need to represent (at least 3 for infrastructure, 5-10+ for platforms and an infinite number for applications) and somehow keeping that in sync with authorative "native" representations like OVF is *far* more experimental, error prone and ultimately likely to fail.
Defining a set of data sequences or a new organization of key/value pairs (as with occi) is a new DSL. It doesn't matter if its in a document or http headers.
-gary
_______________________________________________
occi-wg mailing list
occi-wg@ogf.org
http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg