Public comments are a very important part of the OGF document approval process. Through public comments, documents are given scrutiny by people with a wide range of expertise and interests. Ideally, a OGF document will be self-contained, relying only on the other documents and standards it cites to be clear and useful. Public comments of any type are welcomed, from small editorial comments to broader comments about the scope or merit of the proposed document. The simple act of reading a document and providing a public comment that you read it and found it suitable for publication is very useful, and provides valuable feedback to the document authors.
Thank you for making public comments on this document!
Comments for Document: Open Cloud Computing Interface - Use cases and requirements for a Cloud API
|Public Comment End:||30 Oct, 2009|
There's also the question of whether things like geographic regions or system characteristics are best represented through semantic technologies (e.g., RDF annotations). It's probably not good enough to just use ordinary short strings; the chance of collision of meanings when things are rolled out into production is just too high (unfortunately). For example, "p12345" could mean all sorts of things. I suggest that it's probably not a short- or medium-term requirement to support third-party tagging (because then you get into trouble with needing meta-tagging, and it's a real rat-hole for effort that other people have worked on). It's probably also worth examining whether existing OGF specifications (GLUE, JSDL, etc.) can be used to provide any of these concept-spaces or document formats.
P32: The private cloud discussion (4.3) should IMHO not describe a particular implementation. These should be abstracted and an implementations of the scenarios (if they exits) should be referenced.
P36: There is a section reference that is broken.
This document cannot be published as an OGF document. It does not follow the OGF document layout. It does not have the IPR statement. Why is it here?
@sjn5: the IPR statement is actually in there...the only point where this document differs from the OGF template is about the TOC.