[Nml-wg] xml list examples

[Roman Łapacz]

W dniu 2010-12-04 18:06, Freek Dijkstra pisze:
> 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.

My proposal is for ordering not referencing. Here I would vote for 'b' 
or 'a' (prefer b). Jason., why see 'c' (it doesn't seem to be a general 
solution; only for Ethernet?)?

One more comment about adding a separate namespace for ordered list. NML 
schema does not have to include definitions of additional elements for 
that ('next' or something like that). If a xml library supports ordering 
then an attribute of collection namespace could be ignored. Clean and 
simple solution (and independent of types of ordered elements).

Can we make a final decision what is going to be used for ordered list? 
Freek, what do you think to make a deadline for it?

regards.
Roman


> 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