[Nml-wg] xml list examples

[Freek Dijkstra]

romradz at man.poznan.pl wrote:

> during the OGF30 it was said that the namespace for attributes is not a 
> good idea (may only complicate things).

It's just unusual for regular XML (it is common for RDF).
My opinion is that if we can avoid it, that's nice to have (to ease the
learning curve for people who never saw it before), but it's not very
important (I presume all XML libraries support it).

> Let's assume we had a separate namespace for at least 2 attributes (type, 
> item) to deal with collections like list, map and set.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> <x collection:type="list" 
> xmlns:collection="http://ggf.org/ns/collections">
>    <y collection:item="1">value</y>
>    <y collection:item="2">value</y>
>    <y collection:item="3">value</y>
> </x>

[...]

> 
> Collection namespace and its attributes would not be a part of NML, just a 
> definition which could be used by NML and other standards (for example, 
> NMC). Only when collection structures are needed. This way NML would not 
> have to define ordering (format issue) but focus on topology elements and 
> their relations.

This has my personal preference.

This is in fact basically the same question as this one ("where to put
XML attributes that are not specific to NML):

> Question 2b. What attribute to use for references in XML?
> a) id and idref in NM-WG namespace
> b) id and idref in NML base namespace
> c) id and idref in NML Ethernet namespace
> d) id and idref in new (OGF) namespace (created for just these attribs)
> e) about and resource in RDF namespace

(see topic "Identifier" previous month).

Your solution is solution d.

However, there is no consensus on this topic yet. Please correct me, but
I thought the opinions expressed were:

> Freek:  a, d, e
> Jeroen: b
> Jason:  c

My current stance is that whoever has the time/effort to create the
schema gets to decide :)

Regards,
Freek