Open Stack

On 08/15/2016 10:50 AM, Dean Troyer wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com
> <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 08/15/2016 09:27 AM, Andrew Laski wrote:
>
>         After some thought, I think I've changed my mind on referring to
>         the adjectives as "capabilities" and actually think that the
>         term "capabilities" is better left for the policy-like things.
>
>
>     My vote is the following:
>
>     GET /capabilities <-- returns a set of *actions* or *abilities* that
>     the user is capable of performing
>
>     GET /traits <-- returns a set of *adjectives* or *attributes* that
>     may describe a provider of some resource
>
>     I can rename os-capabilities to os-traits, which would make Sean
>     Mooney happy I think and also clear up the terminology mismatch.
>
>
> /me didn't stop writing previous email to read this first...
>
> I think traits may be preferable to what I wrote a minute ago (using
> qualifiying words) as this definition maintains separation for the
> semantics of 'what can I do' vs 'what am I like'.
>
> Plus 'trait' is a word that if/when surfaced into the UI will not
> collide with anything else yet (that I know of).  It is a lot like how
> OSC uses 'property', but may not be totally incompatible.

Right, the difference being a property has a key/value structure whereas 
a trait in this context is a simple string tag structure.

Best,
-jay