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 the wrong spec! :-p -----Original Message----- From: occi-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:occi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of alexander.papaspyrou@tu-dortmund.de Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 6:33 PM To: ralf@nyren.net Cc: occi-wg@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 some naming in the renderings. I know that, for HTTP, certain things are fix, but I don't see such a danger for confusions, anyway. -Alexander Am 06.10.2010 um 16:33 schrieb Ralf Nyren:
Hi,
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@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Ireland Limited (Branch) Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare, Ireland Registered Number: E902934 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.