[Nml-wg] XML syntax for NML relations

[Freek Dijkstra]

Jason Zurawski wrote:

>>> So far, we have seen these two proposals:
>>>
>>>     <nml:link id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:link_A-to-C">
>>>       <nml:relation type="serialcompound">
>>>          ...
>>>       </nmlserialcompound:relation>
>>>     </nml:link>
> 
> I think you mean this instead:
> 
>       <nml:link id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:link_A-to-C">
>         <nml:relation type="serialcompound">
>            ...
>         </nml:relation>
>       </nml:link>
> 

Yes, you are right of course -- thanks for catching that.

> I agree with Roman, the use of the 'relations' element is really not 
> necessary here.
> 
> I am still not clear why you believe this element is necessary.  It is a 
> 'grouping' concept from what I can tell, but this does not add any 
> inheritance into the sub elements except that of parent/child.  The 
> concept of namepsaces gives you the inheritance that I think you want.

The base element (<nml:relation type="serialcompound">) has the problem
that it is hard to create a meaningful syntax validator.

The subelement (<nmlserialcompound:relation>) has the problem all parser
would need to know about the nmlserialcompound schema in advance, which
hinders extensibility. (*)

The subelement with extra parent element
(<nml:relations><nmlserialcompound:relation>) does not have either of
these two problems.

Which of these 3 statements do you disagree with?

Freek

(*) I'm aware about some subtleties regarding my statement on the
disadvantage of <nmlserialcompound:relation> -- a parser may still
ignore it, not knowing it is a relation subclass -- I'm most happy to
elaborate on that if you think that <nmlserialcompound:relation> is a
better option than <nml:relations><nmlserialcompound:relation>.