On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Andre Merzky <andre@merzky.net> wrote:
Quoting [Sam Johnston] (May 15 2009):
>   * Adopt AtomPub (+search, caching, etc.) as OCCI Core - lots of hard
>     work already done (the alternative will almost certainly involve
>     another OGF cycle, pushing the final delivery out to OGF 28 which
>     is yet to be scheduled in 2010)

Looks good to me.  Although Atom, which you favour, is still
not decided upon ;-)  Anyway, procedure and timeline look
sensible, IMHO.

I'm acutely aware that Atom is still not decided upon - I'm the one who has the privilege of personally paying for a plane to prague (say that 3 times quickly!) to stand in front of an audience and tell everyone where we're at remember... drop AtomPub and I've got very little to talk about beyond the fact that we're on track to fail to deliver on our first deadline. Fun.

For JSON (or any non-Atom format for that matter) you don't have these 20,000+ words as a head start so I find it hard to imagine there's not at least one or two extra OGF cycles to factor in. To be safe you might even consider adopting Thijs' original timeline as the compressed version factored in the significant optimisation (albeit not deliberately/explicitly):

Goals/Deliverables:
OGF25: BoF session and group discussion
OGF26: Group presentations / Spin-off of standardization work.
OGF27: Document (#1) describing use cases and giving an overview of the current state of art / First draft of an API.
OGF28: Document defining entities to be managed, their life-cycle and the associated processes to manage the life-cycle (#2)
OGF29: Standardized API (#3)
OGF30: Refinements
OGF31: Final version of an API

Does anyone seriously think there'll still be a window for OCCI to be relevant in 2011/2012 with the rate things are moving? That's what I thought.

The point is we can still deliver on our promises by relying on AtomPub and pushing the feedback period to post-OGF26 to make up for lost time... alternatively you might just be able to squeeze in an implementable draft by OGF27 and final version by OGF28 "around March 2010" but I wouldn't rely on it and I wouldn't rely on it still being relevant - who knows, you might even end up being forced to implement DMTF's stuff because the "I can't believe it's not cloud" guys have got their ducks in a row before us ;)

FWIW, OGF28 should be around March 2010.

If we've got our final version done by OGF27 (October 2009) then we can get to work on migrating to JSON (JSONPub anyone?) and with any luck drag the rest of the industry over with us through 2010/2011. Iff it makes sense to do so of course - AtomPub is plenty light enough IMO and much lighter starts to be flying too close to the ground (conversely, add schemas, namespaces etc. to JSON and you end up with XML with curly braces!).
 
> One non-technical point to consider when it comes to things like
> registries is that using neutral ground like IANA make the standard far
> more likely to be adopted by other SSOs.

Yes, good point.

Glad we agree - this was one point that worried me a bit about dragging the attention towards a specific SSO outside of IETF...

Sam