[Nml-wg] Serial compound relations

[Roman Łapacz]

W dniu 2010-12-13 16:59, Jason Zurawski pisze:
>
>
> While I see you are still suggesting different namespaces for the 
> attributes, I have not done this for the reasons I have outlined in 
> other threads, the namespace of the attributes in my examples matches 
> that of the surrounding elements.
>
>
>> <nml:node nm:id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:switchC">
>> <nml:hasport 
>> nm:idRef="urn:ogf:network:example.net:switchC:port6-2:ingress"/>
>> </nml:node>
>>
>> <nml:link type="link" nm:id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:segmentAB">
>> <nml:source 
>> nm:idRef="urn:ogf:network:example.net:switchA:port3-1:egress"/>
>> <nml:sink 
>> nm:idRef="urn:ogf:network:example.net:switchB:port4-1:ingress"/>
>> </nml:link>
>

I see the reason of different namespace if we would like to have extra 
attribute for ordering. But for 'id' and 'idRef' attributes I don't seee 
the need for different namespace.

> I believe 'destination' was the term we have used in the past, but 
> 'sink' is fine for now.
>
>
>> <nml:link type="crossconnect" 
>> nm:id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:crossconnect4-1_5-2">
>> <nml:source 
>> nm:idRef="urn:ogf:network:example.net:switchB:port4-1:ingress"/>
>> <nml:sink 
>> nm:idRef="urn:ogf:network:example.net:switchB:port5-2:egress"/>
>> </nml:link>
>
> Can you re-explain what makes 'type=crossconnect' and 'type=link' 
> necessary?  I understand that this is old news for some, but I am 
> still not sure of the distinction and why this is needed.

The type 'link' could be default one so it wouldn't be necessary to have 
it explicitly.

Cheers,
Roman