Definitely agree with this approach. For (A), I think it's actually nouns (e.g. servers), verbs (e.g. start) and noun attributes (e.g. memory). All of these can be consistent between different bindings. For (B), as per my many posts I'm very keen that the text and JSON versions are in extremely simple format - just a flat list of key-value attributes for each noun. I'm much less concerned about the XML syntax. Richard. Andre Merzky wrote:
So, what this discussion basically boils down to is, that this group should do two steps:
A) define the nouns and verbs for the API, and nail down semantics for them
B) do different bindings for the result of (A)
Looks sensible (to me), and there seem to be enough people around who can check the process in (A) for implementability in the various options of (B).
Is that what it is going to be?
Andre