[Nml-wg] Fwd: Network Markup Language Working Group (NML-WG)

[Pascale VICAT-BLANC]

Dear all,

Just two small comments:
- I think NM-WG already proposed a data model in UML (In its first  
GFD document). So, may be NML can propose a UML version for  
simplifying the discussion between
the two groups as suggested by John.
-  RDF is the best choice for letting different communities develop  
their own ontologies and make them interoperable. I think it is a  
very good choice made by the NML group.
So we mainly need to aggree within NML-WG for the ontology we need in  
the considered context.

Pascale


Le 15 oct. 07 à 15:22, John Vollbrecht a écrit :

>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: John Vollbrecht <jrv at internet2.edu>
>> Date: October 15, 2007 8:58:41 AM GMT-04:00
>> To: Martin Swany <swany at cis.udel.edu>
>> Cc: John Vollbrecht <jrv at internet2.edu>, ghpn-wg at ogf.org
>> Subject: Re: Network Markup Language Working Group (NML-WG)
>>
>> Martin and Paola -
>>
>> Thanks for the reminder of this, and I hope you make good progress  
>> on creating NML.
>>
>> I am not expert at data base representation methods, but it does  
>> seem that it would be good to have a common understanding of what  
>> is to be described.  I know that at least two methods of  
>> representation - NDL and the NMWG schema - are close.  Coming to  
>> agreement on a common method would be wonderful in terms of  
>> getting applications developed in different "spheres of influence"  
>> to be able to work together.   I believe an (at least informal)  
>> minimal goal of this group is to define a "data model" such that  
>> both NDL and NMWG methods  (if they continue independently) will  
>> be able to do a mechanical translation between each other.
>>
>> This ability to do mechanical translation implies that both have a  
>> common data model that is represented in different form.   I  
>> suggest that this data model be the first item of work for the  
>> group, rather than trying to decide which representation method  
>> the group will choose - since at a minimum both should be possible.
>>
>> If a common data model is chosen, then perhaps discussion of the  
>> best way to represent it for different (or all) applications can  
>> follow.
>>
>> Of course, there is the question of how a common data model is  
>> represented in the first place.  I am not sure what this should  
>> be, but I suggest that a UML representation or a Entity  
>> Relationship model - something graphical - might be useful.
>>
>> I hope this is helpful.  Best luck to all in working this out -
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Oct 14, 2007, at 7:56 PM, Martin Swany wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Sorry for the wide distribution.  We wanted to make you aware
>>> (remind you in some cases) of the new working group called
>>> the Network Markup Language WG (NML-WG.)  From the charter:
>>>
>>> "The purpose of the Network Mark-up Language Working Group is to  
>>> combine efforts of multiple projects to describe network  
>>> topologies, so that the outcome is a standardised network  
>>> description ontology and schema, facilitating interoperability  
>>> between different projects."
>>>
>>> The relationship of this group to the NM-WG is obvious as
>>> network measurement are a key user of representations of
>>> network topology.  For the GHPN, those interested in dynamic
>>> Grid networks should be interested in the NML-WG as it
>>> represents a basis for topology exchange and pathfinding.
>>>
>>> Essentially, many groups have a need to represent network
>>> elements, and we believe that a single representation is ideal.
>>> That's a little misleading in that various levels of resolution
>>> make sense at different times, but some of us have the sense
>>> that a single representation framework can accomplish that.
>>>
>>> For more details, to participate, or to throw fruit and tell us
>>> the problem is solved/unsolvable/irrelevant or just plain
>>> out of our feeble depth, please join us in Seattle at OGF21.
>>>
>>> best regards,
>>> Martin and Paola
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nml-wg mailing list
> nml-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nml-wg/attachments/20071015/a6e34d97/attachment-0001.html