Re: OCP version head_sid3 available

[Alex Rousskov <rousskov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Markus Hofmann wrote:

>
> Alex Rousskov wrote:
>
> >    o  clarified application message definition and OCP boundaries by
> >       introducing three kinds of "applications": processor input,
> >       processor output, and OCP application
>
> Apology if this has been addressed before, but it seems the term
> "OCP application" might be a little bit confusing in this context.
> Isn't it the case that it describes that payload type pf the OCP
> message, so that we could use "OCP payload type" rather than OCP
> application?

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
meaning.

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.

Another important thing is that it should be easy to show that there
is no documented/required relationship among processor input
application, OCP application (or whatever we call it), and processor
output application. When all three are "applications", the
explanations are easy.

Suggestions?

Alex.