Skip to content

Conversation

mickenordin
Copy link
Collaborator

The intention is to allow for a way to advertise the existence of resources at the OCM server.

The intention is to allow for a way to advertise the existence of resources
at the OCM server.

Signed-off-by: Micke Nordin <[email protected]>
{
"server": "OCM Server 1",
"resources": [
{
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

maybe individual resources could be aligned to protocol in Discovery? E.g. when a resource is only available via webdav, webapp or some other protocol?

How do I know if I need to send a ShareRequest as in #194 ?

@MahdiBaghbani
Copy link
Member

I tried fixing the merge conflict and line length, failed on the line length 😅

IETF-RFC.md Outdated
* OPTIONAL: `rocrate` - an embedded JSON object following the
[ROCRATE](https://www.researchobject.org/ro-crate/specification/1.1/data-entities.html)
data-entities specification.
* REQUIRED: `id` - the unique identifier of the resource at the OCM Server
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's nitpicking on my side, I think we should keep the names consistent across the endpoints.

The providerId is from share creation

Suggested change
* REQUIRED: `id` - the unique identifier of the resource at the OCM Server
* REQUIRED: `providerId` - the unique identifier of the resource at the OCM Server

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

isn't this wrong then according to #271 as the providerId will only be created when the share is sent?

I guess this would need to be some identifier from #196 ?

Copy link
Member

@MahdiBaghbani MahdiBaghbani Aug 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@KrausMatthias yes, I think it should have name like resourceId or something like that instead of providerId

and this is #196 😄

Co-authored-by: Mahdi Baghbani <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants