Actually, I still don't see a problem here. If we have an abstract rendering, which formally specifies the semantics of the data, and normative renderings which formally define the mapping to concrete formats (JSON, CSV, etc.), then it is trivial to put a converter (say, XSLT in the XML case) between them to map the data. The same thing can be done for all other renderings as well, provided that the semantics of the data and renderings are fixed. -Alexander Am 12.05.2009 um 15:31 schrieb Alexis Richardson:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Chris Webb <chris.webb@elastichosts.com
wrote: Alexis Richardson <alexis.richardson@gmail.com> writes:
I still think there can be only one interop format - I think Chris put it very well.
I didn't make quite that strong a statement! It's fine to have multiple interop formats but you can't have *optional* interop formats. Clients can't rely on anything optional: they have to use one of the compulsory renderings if they want their code to be portable across cloud providers.
Maybe we are talking about different things.
I am talking about the format for the data exchanged between client and cloud.
Cheers,
Chris.
_______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
-- Alexander Papaspyrou alexander.papaspyrou@tu-dortmund.de