On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Markus Hofmann wrote:
Alex Rousskov wrote:
I agree that "OCP application" is awkward. However, we are not talking
just about OCP message payload. The term refers to the set of
agreements (a protocol) covering things like:
- meta-data encoding
- required meta-data fields and their meaning
- data encoding
- data meaning
The exact combination is unknown a priory. For example, in some cases,
it may make sense to agree on meta-data and let meta-data describe
data encoding and meaning.
The "other side" of OCP communication does not know what it is getting
in meta-data and data fields. It needs to be told about encoding and
meanings, just like, say, HTTP defines HTTP message encoding and
Again, a better term than "OCP application" would be great, but it has
to cover all of the above things. It is the result of OCP agents
negotiations about data and meta-data.
What you describe above (i.e. meta-data encoding, data encoding,
etc.), isn't that is some sense a profile for the data to be exchanged
via OCP, basically an "OCP profile"?
I guess you can call the above an "OCP profile", though an "OCP
payload profile" would be more accurate: data and metadata are OCP
payload, the profile does not describe OCP but only its payload. A
profile describing data and metadata.
The actual data to be exchanged and described by the profile would
be "OCP data"...
THE question is "what is am-id referring to?" A complete data+metadata
blob with no name? In the current model the thing referred to by am-id
is called "OCP application message". Hopefully, we can find a better
name for that entity.