[Nmc-wg] Base doc

[Jason Zurawski]

Hi Candido;

>>
>> 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
> 
> Yes, I think it's very well explained in the nmc-base document. Maybe we 
> can add a row in tables specifying if the element is multiple or not...


Good idea, I will add this to the todo list(s).


>>
>> - 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.
> 
> I think it's clearer in the nmc-base document. However, if I've 
> understood it well, the document explains some general rules about 
> chaining but it's the service which decides how it will do it, isn't it? 
> So, there isn't any standard (or automatic) way of doing?


The procedures in place could vary from service to service, and a goal 
of this group should be to standardize the procedure so it is uniform. 
I have added TODO items regarding chaining so some of the original 
implementors and designers can talk and hopefully record things 
accurately.


> Also, there is a typo in the first line in 7.1.5.1. I cannot see the the 
> whole value of the eventType.

Fixed, thanks for finding this.

-jason