On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:05:11 +0000, "Feldhaus, Florian" <florian.feldhaus@gwdg.de> wrote:
For the sake of backward compatibility I agree we probably cannot
require
Entity.ID to be a UUID. A "SHOULD" is an acceptable compromise IMO.
ok, could you update the OCCI draft then?
Sure. I will add that together with the appendix summarizing the errata changes.
Just to clarify, do you think that OCCI Core should recommend a specific format of the Entity IDs as well?
I mean, even if Entity.ID is a UUID there are multiple ways to represent a UUID. E.g. canonical form, binary format, URN, etc.
Having a specific ID format specified directly in OCCI Core would definitely help with consistency across renderings. However from a technical perspective I think the particular UUID format to use should be up to the rendering.
Currently the ID format is specified to be the URI format. I wouldn't change that for this revision.
So, it would be up to the implementation to decide whether to render Entity.ID as e.g. a URN or an URL with a UUID at the end? (URI = URL | URN) Strictly speaking if Entity.ID is a URI, the following would not be valid right? { ... id: "1b1fcb26-b675-4827-a479-ad77382f51a6" } (taken from the JSON data format examples) It would have to be "urn:uuid:1b1fcb26-b675-4827-a479-ad77382f51a6" instead if I understood the RFC. regards, Ralf