12 May
2009
12 May
'09
3:53 p.m.
On May 12, 2009, at 4:20 AM, Sam Johnston wrote:
These are both valid alternatives but given our ultimate aim is to reduce costs it makes [a lot] more sense to have a primary format which supports mechanical transforms than to externalise the development to implementors (and then expect the results to be interoperable).
You have argued on many occasions that mechanical transformation of the OCCI protocol data format is a key requirement. I've never understood why, and I've never engaged in a protocol design where this was an issue. Could you expand on why this matters? -Tim