[Nmc-wg] Base doc

[Jason Zurawski]

Hi Candido;

>>> - I think the structure of namespace could be explained
>>
>>
>> The original thinking was the NM-WG document, "An Extensible Schema for
>> Network Measurement and Performance Data", would contain the entire
>> explanation of namespaces (the idea itself coming from another OGF WG).
>>    Any future documents from related projects (NMC, NML, others?) would
>> reference this and only note caveats to the original rule.  The NM-WG
>> doc is here:
>>
>> https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15649?nav=1
>>
>> And I think namespaces are in section 4.  Does everyone think this is
>> sufficient, or should we consider other options?
> 
> The explanation of namespaces is clear to me.
> But I have a comment about EventTypes. In 3.1 and in 7.1 I understand 
> that the EventyType in a metadata MUST appear only one time. But in the 
> last example in 5.4 is showing two event types and it says that those 
> "MAY NOT appear". I think it should say "MUST NOT appear" unless there 
> are cases where it makes sense to allow two or more event types.
> Also, the section 5 was a little confuse to me. I see that metadata can 
> be merged but I don't get how they should be merged. I read it again and 
> I'll send comments and ideas about this.


I am a little lost in your explanation, there is not a section 3.1 in 
the NMC Base document, are you referring to the NM-WG document instead?

Let me try to clear up the eventType explanation anyway:

  - multiple eventTypes in a single metadata are possible and common, 
e.g. something from the 'characteristic' namespace and the 'tool' 
namespace.  An example would be SNMP data:

   http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/tools/snmp/2.0
   http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/characteristic/utilization/2.0

  - The example you are referring to (page 30 in the nmc doc I think?) 
is poorly worded.  The situation I was trying to describe is merging 
metadata where the eventTypes are not compatible.  In this case 'errors' 
is very different than 'utilization' and shouldn't be merged.  I will 
place a note in this to clear this up down the road.

Does this help a little bit?

Chaining is a hard concept, and this represents my view of how it works. 
  I may have some details wrong.  I think that Martin, Jeff, and Roman 
should carefully read these sections to check my accuracy in describing 
things.

Thanks;

-jason