TelCo next week

newer
Cloud Commons Tweetchat TODAY Oct....

older
December 2012 Cloud Plugfest...

Feldhaus, Florian

25 Sep 2012 25 Sep '12

3:54 p.m.

Hi, I just spoke with Thijs and we would suggest to skip the TelCo today and encourage everyone to join the TelCo next week 18:00 CET. We would like to discuss all remaining issues with the OCCI Core and OCCI JSON documents and then prepare them for submission to the OGF review process. It is very important, that everyone checks the documents again. The latest versions of the documents can be found here: http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/core-errata/cha... http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/json/changes/js... Cheers, Florian

Attachments:

smime.p7s (application/pkcs7-signature — 4.8 KB)

Show replies by date

Ralf Nyren

1 Oct 1 Oct

9:36 p.m.

New subject: OCCI Core Errata Draft (update)

Hi, I have updated the OCCI Core document to include the feedback on the last errata draft. Please find a PDF attached and refer to the Git commit log [1] for details. The document now contains an Errata Summary and is (in my view) close to its final state. If you have any pending corrections for OCCI Core now is the time to speak up! Very important to read and provide feedback on the Core errata update and the JSON Rendering spec. regards, Ralf [1] http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/core-errata/cha... On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:54:48 +0200, Feldhaus, Florian wrote:

...

Hi,

I just spoke with Thijs and we would suggest to skip the TelCo today and encourage everyone to join the TelCo next week 18:00 CET. We would like to discuss all remaining issues with the OCCI Core and OCCI JSON documents and then prepare them for submission to the OGF review process.

It is very important, that everyone checks the documents again. The latest versions of the documents can be found here: http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/core-errata/cha... http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/json/changes/js...

Cheers, Florian

Andre Merzky

2 Oct 2 Oct

10:48 a.m.

New subject: OCCI Core Errata Draft (update)

Hi Ralf, all, I had a quick look over the document. It looks good to me in general, nice job! Two small comments: - 'Errata Draft GFD-P-R.183' This is not an errata document, but a new GFD document (no matter if it keeps the number or not). The document should thus be clearly marked as a new revision of the OCCI Core specification, which *contains* Errata. A sentence in that respect in the 'Status of this Document' section would be good. A statement about how that revision / how thee errata influence depending specs (OCCI infrastructure, OCCI renderings) would also be useful and clarifying. - errata section 6. - <pedantic> please add a page break before that section </pedantic> - for each item, it would be great if you could add a short statement if that item has any consequences for implementors of the earlier revision, in particular for backward compatibility. Best, Andre. On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Ralf Nyren wrote:

...

Hi,

I have updated the OCCI Core document to include the feedback on the last errata draft.

Please find a PDF attached and refer to the Git commit log [1] for details.

The document now contains an Errata Summary and is (in my view) close to its final state. If you have any pending corrections for OCCI Core now is the time to speak up!

Very important to read and provide feedback on the Core errata update and the JSON Rendering spec.

regards, Ralf

[1] http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/core-errata/cha...

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:54:48 +0200, Feldhaus, Florian wrote:

...
Hi,

I just spoke with Thijs and we would suggest to skip the TelCo today and encourage everyone to join the TelCo next week 18:00 CET. We would like to discuss all remaining issues with the OCCI Core and OCCI JSON documents and then prepare them for submission to the OGF review process.

It is very important, that everyone checks the documents again. The latest versions of the documents can be found here:

http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/core-errata/cha...

http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/json/changes/js...

Cheers, Florian

_______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg

-- Nothing is really difficult...

Ralf Nyren

1:27 p.m.

New subject: OCCI Core Errata Draft (update)

On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 12:48:54 +0200, Andre Merzky wrote:

...

Hi Ralf, all,

I had a quick look over the document. It looks good to me in general, nice job!

Hi Andre, thanks for taking the time to read the document!

...

Two small comments:

- 'Errata Draft GFD-P-R.183'

This is not an errata document, but a new GFD document (no matter if it keeps the number or not). The document should thus be clearly marked as a new revision of the OCCI Core specification, which *contains* Errata.

Ok. Let me know what should be there and I will update the draft document. The purpose of "Errata Draft" at this stage was just to inform that this is not a final published document. It is still a draft. Maybe I should have removed the document number altogether.

...

A sentence in that respect in the 'Status of this Document' section would be good.

Good point. What is common to put into "Status of this Document" at this point in the OGF document process? (I have to start doing my homework in OGF processes...)

...

A statement about how that revision / how thee errata influence depending specs (OCCI infrastructure, OCCI renderings) would also be useful and clarifying.

np, I can add that. Where do you want it in the document?

...

- errata section 6. - <pedantic> please add a page break before that section </pedantic>

Sure, just didn't bother with LaTeX beautification last night. Will fix.

...

- for each item, it would be great if you could add a short statement if that item has any consequences for implementors of the earlier revision, in particular for backward compatibility.

...

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Ralf Nyren wrote:

...
Hi,

I have updated the OCCI Core document to include the feedback on the last errata draft.

Please find a PDF attached and refer to the Git commit log [1] for details.

The document now contains an Errata Summary and is (in my view) close to its final state. If you have any pending corrections for OCCI Core now is

...

...
time to speak up!

Very important to read and provide feedback on the Core errata update and the JSON Rendering spec.

regards, Ralf

[1]

http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/core-errata/cha...

...
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:54:48 +0200, Feldhaus, Florian wrote:

...
Hi,

I just spoke with Thijs and we would suggest to skip the TelCo today

and

...
...
encourage everyone to join the TelCo next week 18:00 CET. We would

Will do. Btw, is Section 6 a good location for the Errata summary? Or should it go further down, e.g. after glossary? regards, Ralf the like

...

...
...
to discuss all remaining issues with the OCCI Core and OCCI JSON documents and then prepare them for submission to the OGF review process.

It is very important, that everyone checks the documents again. The latest versions of the documents can be found here:

http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/core-errata/cha...

...
http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/json/changes/js...

...
Cheers, Florian

_______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg

Andre Merzky

1:51 p.m.

New subject: OCCI Core Errata Draft (update)

Hi Ralf, On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Ralf Nyren wrote:

...

On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 12:48:54 +0200, Andre Merzky wrote:

...
Hi Ralf, all,

I had a quick look over the document. It looks good to me in general, nice job!

Hi Andre, thanks for taking the time to read the document!

...
Two small comments:

- 'Errata Draft GFD-P-R.183'

This is not an errata document, but a new GFD document (no matter if it keeps the number or not). The document should thus be clearly marked as a new revision of the OCCI Core specification, which *contains* Errata.

Ok. Let me know what should be there and I will update the draft document.

Updating the 'status' section and removing the 'errata' part from the number should solve this.

...

The purpose of "Errata Draft" at this stage was just to inform that this is not a final published document. It is still a draft. Maybe I should have removed the document number altogether.

...
A sentence in that respect in the 'Status of this Document' section would be good.

Good point. What is common to put into "Status of this Document" at this point in the OGF document process?

(I have to start doing my homework in OGF processes...)

:-) GFD.152 (http://ogf.org/documents/GFD.152.pdf) is the one you want to look at, as author. The status section is prescribed, but actually ill defined. It is supposed to convey to the casual (OGF-acronym unaware) reader what this document represents (informational, specification, proposed spec etc, but also revision, possibly dependent specs, intended audience).

...

...
A statement about how that revision / how thee errata influence depending specs (OCCI infrastructure, OCCI renderings) would also be useful and clarifying.

np, I can add that. Where do you want it in the document?

At the end of the intro, where relation to other docs is already placed?

...

...
- errata section 6. - <pedantic> please add a page break before that section </pedantic>

Sure, just didn't bother with LaTeX beautification last night. Will fix.

:-)

...

...
- for each item, it would be great if you could add a short statement if that item has any consequences for implementors of the earlier revision, in particular for backward compatibility.

Will do.

Btw, is Section 6 a good location for the Errata summary? Or should it go further down, e.g. after glossary?

section 6 is fine IMHO, an appendix would also work, and is possibly more common, to leave the spec text itself 'cleaner'. Thanks, Andre.

...

regards, Ralf

...
...
Hi,

I have updated the OCCI Core document to include the feedback on the last errata draft.

Please find a PDF attached and refer to the Git commit log [1] for details.

The document now contains an Errata Summary and is (in my view) close to its final state. If you have any pending corrections for OCCI Core now is

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Ralf Nyren wrote: the

...
time to speak up!

Very important to read and provide feedback on the Core errata update and the JSON Rendering spec.

regards, Ralf

[1]

http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/core-errata/cha...

...
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:54:48 +0200, Feldhaus, Florian wrote:

...
Hi,

I just spoke with Thijs and we would suggest to skip the TelCo today

...
...
encourage everyone to join the TelCo next week 18:00 CET. We would

and like

...
...
to discuss all remaining issues with the OCCI Core and OCCI JSON documents and then prepare them for submission to the OGF review process.

It is very important, that everyone checks the documents again. The latest versions of the documents can be found here:

http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/core-errata/cha...

...
http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/json/changes/js...

...
Cheers, Florian

_______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg

-- Nothing is really difficult...

Sill, Alan

3:33 p.m.

New subject: OCCI Core Errata Draft (update)

On Oct 2, 2012, at 7:51 AM, Andre Merzky wrote:

...

...
What is common to put into "Status of this Document" at this point in the OGF document process?

(I have to start doing my homework in OGF processes...)

:-) GFD.152 (http://ogf.org/documents/GFD.152.pdf) is the one you want to look at, as author.

Yes. A search on "status" within GFD.152 may be helpful.

...

The status section is prescribed, but actually ill defined. It is supposed to convey to the casual (OGF-acronym unaware) reader what this document represents (informational, specification, proposed spec etc, but also revision, possibly dependent specs, intended audience).

A clarification: the status of a general GFD can vary if it is a community practice or experimental document, but for recommendations-track documents there are only two status levels: proposed recommendation (GFD-R-P) or full grid recommendation (GFD-R). You an use this section to indicate obsolescence or conversion to historical status. The three main OCCI recommendations so far are "proposed recommendations". The idea is that a proposed rec gains experience in implementation, and after a sufficient period of time and implementation experience, basically at least six months plus at least two interoperable independent implementations, plus documentation of accumulated experience (see below) can advance to a full recommendation status. So you have a lot less flexibility for free-form content in the "status" section of a recommendations-track document. You shouldn't use this section tho put stuff in along the lines of "we're thinking about it". The easiest way to document and compare implementations and gather relevant observations about its use is in an experience or community practice document. The former is the vehicle often used by groups to make the case for advancement of a recommendation from proposed to full Rec status. So basically: Proposed Rec --> any needed errata --> multiple implementations + an experience document --> any needed revisions --> proposal to advance to a full recommendation. Of course, errata can be applied at any time to the document, or a new document can be prepared that obsoletes the old one if substantial changes are needed that don't fit into the errata process or paradigm. Also see this note in GFD.152: "Small changes (as described in the Errata section below) may be applied from the Proposed Recommendation to the Grid Recommendation, but these should be used with caution, and changes that would impact interoperability should be avoided. If substantive changes are needed, a new Proposed Recommendation must be developed." Hope this helps! Alan

Augusto Ciuffoletti

17 Oct 17 Oct

9:10 a.m.

New subject: OCCI Core Errata Draft (update)

Ralf, A note about the Mixin section (sect. 4.4.4), which is fact extends to (r|R)esource definition. Throughout the whole section the doc explains the relationship of mixins with (r)esource instances. But the term resource is overloaded: lower case and followed by {instance} it is an instance of an Entity, upper case is one of the two Entity subtypes. The reader may have the (wrong) impression that Links (the other subtype) cannot be associated with Mixins. The picture is complicated by the fact that (R)esources are defined in a following section, and forward references degrade readability. The fact that Figure 2 explains that mixins can be associated with Entities (not only Resources), and that the glossary is even more explicit about that does not help enough the first-time reader. If you agree with me, one way to solve the problem is to state explicitly the overloading. I'd add two sentences: one the first time the term (r)esource is used, and another when the entity is defined. The sentence should be an explicit warning: "A {\em resource instance} must not be confused with the {\em Resource}, as it will be defined in section..." since the possibility of a misunderstanding is real (in my experience :-)). A pointer to the glossary can be helpful. Thank you Augusto 2012/10/1 Ralf Nyren

...

Hi,

I have updated the OCCI Core document to include the feedback on the last errata draft.

Please find a PDF attached and refer to the Git commit log [1] for details.

The document now contains an Errata Summary and is (in my view) close to its final state. If you have any pending corrections for OCCI Core now is the time to speak up!

Very important to read and provide feedback on the Core errata update and the JSON Rendering spec.

regards, Ralf

[1] http://redmine.ogf.org/**projects/occi-wg/repository/** revisions/core-errata/changes/**core.texhttp://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/core-errata/cha...

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:54:48 +0200, Feldhaus, Florian < florian.feldhaus@gwdg.de> wrote:

Hi,

...
I just spoke with Thijs and we would suggest to skip the TelCo today and encourage everyone to join the TelCo next week 18:00 CET. We would like to discuss all remaining issues with the OCCI Core and OCCI JSON documents and then prepare them for submission to the OGF review process.

It is very important, that everyone checks the documents again. The latest versions of the documents can be found here: http://redmine.ogf.org/**projects/occi-wg/repository/** revisions/core-errata/changes/**core.texhttp://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/core-errata/cha... http://redmine.ogf.org/**projects/occi-wg/repository/** revisions/json/changes/json_**rendering.texhttp://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/json/changes/js...

Cheers, Florian

_______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg

-- Augusto Ciuffoletti Dipartimento di Informatica Università di Pisa 56100 - Pisa (Italy)

Ralf Nyren

29 Oct 29 Oct

9:52 a.m.

New subject: OCCI Core Errata Draft (update)

...

Ralf,

A note about the Mixin section (sect. 4.4.4), which is fact extends to (r|R)esource definition.

Throughout the whole section the doc explains the relationship of mixins with (r)esource instances. But the term resource is overloaded: lower case and followed by {instance} it is an instance of an Entity, upper case is one of the two Entity subtypes. The reader may have the (wrong) impression that Links (the other subtype) cannot be associated with Mixins. The picture is complicated by the fact that (R)esources are defined in a following section, and forward references degrade readability. The fact that Figure 2 explains that mixins can be associated with Entities (not only Resources), and that the glossary is even more explicit about that does not help enough the first-time reader.

If you agree with me, one way to solve the problem is to state explicitly the overloading. I'd add two sentences: one the first time the term (r)esource is used, and another when the entity is defined. The sentence should be an explicit warning: "A {\em resource instance} must not be confused with the {\em Resource}, as it will be defined in section..." since the possibility of a misunderstanding is real (in my experience :-)). A pointer to the glossary can be helpful.

Thank you

Augusto

2012/10/1 Ralf Nyren

...
Hi,

I have updated the OCCI Core document to include the feedback on the last errata draft.

Please find a PDF attached and refer to the Git commit log [1] for details.

The document now contains an Errata Summary and is (in my view) close to its final state. If you have any pending corrections for OCCI Core now is the time to speak up!

Very important to read and provide feedback on the Core errata update and the JSON Rendering spec.

regards, Ralf

[1] http://redmine.ogf.org/**projects/occi-wg/repository/**

revisions/core-errata/changes/**core.texhttp://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/core-errata/cha...

...
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:54:48 +0200, Feldhaus, Florian < florian.feldhaus@gwdg.de> wrote:

Hi,

...
I just spoke with Thijs and we would suggest to skip the TelCo today

and

...
...
encourage everyone to join the TelCo next week 18:00 CET. We would

Hi Augusto, You really pointed out a weak spot in the spec. I have been rather unhappy with the "resource instance" terminology for quite some time (although I am probably the one to blame for it being introduced in the first place ;) Your suggestion to put in a clarification the first time "resource instance" is mentioned is the least we can do. I will include that in the next Core draft update. However, I have been thinking if we could try and fix this with some more clever wording. The basic problem is that we want a common name for instances of both OCCI Resource, OCCI Link and any sub-type derived from them. But _not_ an instance of Entity itself since it is an abstract class. We could probably say "entity instance" instead of "resource instance". It would still not be optimal since you cannot instantiate OCCI Entity but at least the confusion about OCCI Link would be eliminated. What do you all think? regards, Ralf On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:10:15 +0200, Augusto Ciuffoletti wrote: like

...

...
...
to discuss all remaining issues with the OCCI Core and OCCI JSON documents and then prepare them for submission to the OGF review process.

It is very important, that everyone checks the documents again. The latest versions of the documents can be found here: http://redmine.ogf.org/**projects/occi-wg/repository/**

revisions/core-errata/changes/**core.texhttp://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/core-errata/cha...

...
http://redmine.ogf.org/**projects/occi-wg/repository/**

revisions/json/changes/json_**rendering.texhttp://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/json/changes/js...

...
Cheers, Florian

_______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg

Augusto Ciuffoletti

10:26 p.m.

New subject: OCCI Core Errata Draft (update)

The point is: is an extensive rewording compatible with document stability (maybe also reputation)? I think we should take a decision about this first. The next step is simply a s/resource/anything/g. Augusto 2012/10/29 Ralf Nyren

...

Hi Augusto,

You really pointed out a weak spot in the spec. I have been rather unhappy with the "resource instance" terminology for quite some time (although I am probably the one to blame for it being introduced in the first place ;)

Your suggestion to put in a clarification the first time "resource instance" is mentioned is the least we can do. I will include that in the next Core draft update.

However, I have been thinking if we could try and fix this with some more clever wording. The basic problem is that we want a common name for instances of both OCCI Resource, OCCI Link and any sub-type derived from them. But _not_ an instance of Entity itself since it is an abstract class.

We could probably say "entity instance" instead of "resource instance". It would still not be optimal since you cannot instantiate OCCI Entity but at least the confusion about OCCI Link would be eliminated.

What do you all think?

regards, Ralf

...
Ralf,

A note about the Mixin section (sect. 4.4.4), which is fact extends to (r|R)esource definition.

Throughout the whole section the doc explains the relationship of mixins with (r)esource instances. But the term resource is overloaded: lower case and followed by {instance} it is an instance of an Entity, upper case is one of the two Entity subtypes. The reader may have the (wrong) impression that Links (the other subtype) cannot be associated with Mixins. The picture is complicated by the fact that (R)esources are defined in a following section, and forward references degrade readability. The fact that Figure 2 explains that mixins can be associated with Entities (not only Resources), and that the glossary is even more explicit about that does not help enough the first-time reader.

If you agree with me, one way to solve the problem is to state explicitly the overloading. I'd add two sentences: one the first time the term (r)esource is used, and another when the entity is defined. The sentence should be an explicit warning: "A {\em resource instance} must not be confused with the {\em Resource}, as it will be defined in section..." since the possibility of a misunderstanding is real (in my experience :-)). A pointer to the glossary can be helpful.

Thank you

Augusto

2012/10/1 Ralf Nyren

...
Hi,

I have updated the OCCI Core document to include the feedback on the last errata draft.

Please find a PDF attached and refer to the Git commit log [1] for details.

The document now contains an Errata Summary and is (in my view) close to its final state. If you have any pending corrections for OCCI Core now is the time to speak up!

Very important to read and provide feedback on the Core errata update and the JSON Rendering spec.

regards, Ralf

[1] http://redmine.ogf.org/**projects/occi-wg/repository/**

revisions/core-errata/changes/**core.tex< http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/core-errata/cha...

...
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:54:48 +0200, Feldhaus, Florian < florian.feldhaus@gwdg.de> wrote:

Hi,

...
I just spoke with Thijs and we would suggest to skip the TelCo today

and

...
...
encourage everyone to join the TelCo next week 18:00 CET. We would

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:10:15 +0200, Augusto Ciuffoletti wrote: like

...
...
...
to discuss all remaining issues with the OCCI Core and OCCI JSON documents and then prepare them for submission to the OGF review process.

It is very important, that everyone checks the documents again. The latest versions of the documents can be found here: http://redmine.ogf.org/**projects/occi-wg/repository/**

revisions/core-errata/changes/**core.tex< http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/core-errata/cha...

...
...
http://redmine.ogf.org/**projects/occi-wg/repository/**

revisions/json/changes/json_**rendering.tex< http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/json/changes/js...

...
...
Cheers, Florian

_______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg

occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg

-- Augusto Ciuffoletti Dipartimento di Informatica Università di Pisa 56100 - Pisa (Italy)

Andre Merzky

11:20 p.m.

New subject: OCCI Core Errata Draft (update)

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Augusto Ciuffoletti wrote:

...

The point is: is an extensive rewording compatible with document stability (maybe also reputation)? I think we should take a decision about this first. The next step is simply a s/resource/anything/g.

my $0.02, clarity and correctness are better than stability. A.

...

Augusto

2012/10/29 Ralf Nyren

...
Hi Augusto,

You really pointed out a weak spot in the spec. I have been rather unhappy with the "resource instance" terminology for quite some time (although I am probably the one to blame for it being introduced in the first place ;)

Your suggestion to put in a clarification the first time "resource instance" is mentioned is the least we can do. I will include that in the next Core draft update.

However, I have been thinking if we could try and fix this with some more clever wording. The basic problem is that we want a common name for instances of both OCCI Resource, OCCI Link and any sub-type derived from them. But _not_ an instance of Entity itself since it is an abstract class.

We could probably say "entity instance" instead of "resource instance". It would still not be optimal since you cannot instantiate OCCI Entity but at least the confusion about OCCI Link would be eliminated.

What do you all think?

regards, Ralf

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:10:15 +0200, Augusto Ciuffoletti wrote:

...
Ralf,

A note about the Mixin section (sect. 4.4.4), which is fact extends to (r|R)esource definition.

Throughout the whole section the doc explains the relationship of mixins with (r)esource instances. But the term resource is overloaded: lower case and followed by {instance} it is an instance of an Entity, upper case is one of the two Entity subtypes. The reader may have the (wrong) impression that Links (the other subtype) cannot be associated with Mixins. The picture is complicated by the fact that (R)esources are defined in a following section, and forward references degrade readability. The fact that Figure 2 explains that mixins can be associated with Entities (not only Resources), and that the glossary is even more explicit about that does not help enough the first-time reader.

If you agree with me, one way to solve the problem is to state explicitly the overloading. I'd add two sentences: one the first time the term (r)esource is used, and another when the entity is defined. The sentence should be an explicit warning: "A {\em resource instance} must not be confused with the {\em Resource}, as it will be defined in section..." since the possibility of a misunderstanding is real (in my experience :-)). A pointer to the glossary can be helpful.

Thank you

Augusto

2012/10/1 Ralf Nyren

...
Hi,

I have updated the OCCI Core document to include the feedback on the last errata draft.

Please find a PDF attached and refer to the Git commit log [1] for details.

The document now contains an Errata Summary and is (in my view) close to its final state. If you have any pending corrections for OCCI Core now is the time to speak up!

Very important to read and provide feedback on the Core errata update and the JSON Rendering spec.

regards, Ralf

[1] http://redmine.ogf.org/**projects/occi-wg/repository/**

...
...
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:54:48 +0200, Feldhaus, Florian < florian.feldhaus@gwdg.de> wrote:

Hi,

...
I just spoke with Thijs and we would suggest to skip the TelCo today

and

...
...
encourage everyone to join the TelCo next week 18:00 CET. We would

revisions/core-errata/changes/**core.texhttp://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/core-errata/cha... like

...
...
...
to discuss all remaining issues with the OCCI Core and OCCI JSON documents and then prepare them for submission to the OGF review process.

It is very important, that everyone checks the documents again. The latest versions of the documents can be found here: http://redmine.ogf.org/**projects/occi-wg/repository/**

revisions/core-errata/changes/**core.texhttp://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/core-errata/cha...

...
...
...
http://redmine.ogf.org/**projects/occi-wg/repository/**

revisions/json/changes/json_**rendering.texhttp://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/json/changes/js...

...
...
...
Cheers, Florian

_______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg

occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg

-- Augusto Ciuffoletti Dipartimento di Informatica Università di Pisa 56100 - Pisa (Italy)

_______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg

-- Nothing is really difficult...

4359

Age (days ago)

4393

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

9 comments

5 participants

participants (5)

Andre Merzky
Augusto Ciuffoletti
Feldhaus, Florian
Ralf Nyren
Sill, Alan

TelCo next week

Feldhaus, Florian

tags

participants (5)