[Nml-wg] Possibility of changes (was Re: Interface vs Port)

[Jeroen van der Ham]

Hi,

On 31 Aug 2011, at 12:25, Jason Zurawski wrote:

> Hi Jeroen/All;
> 
> The rest of this conversations seems to have disappeared, are we done discussing the purpose of this thread?  Will we need yet another subject change?
> 

I think we're about done with the discussion, to summarize:
- I proposed to change Port to Interface to avoid possible confusion for users
- Jeff feels a name change is a major overhaul (I wonder what impact a change on relations would be then).
- Jason raises the point: what's in it for NML to change this?

Other than avoiding confusion and adoption of Interface in several major projects, I can't think of any more arguments for the change.
I think those projects will probably define something like "Interface owl:sameAs nml:Port" in their ontologies.


> Comments inline:
> 
> On 8/31/11 5:04 AM, thus spake Jeroen van der Ham:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> On 30 Aug 2011, at 17:58, Jason Zurawski wrote:
>>> Regarding plugfest, your statement surprises me.  This is an opportunity to show the work being produced by the NML working group as an interoperable and legitimate way to describe network topology.  Using something different, with no real ties to the working group, means that what is being produced really is "demo" code that will need to be 'changed' when the final standard is produced.  This seems like a bit mistake, and a loss for the WG in my opinion.
>>> 
>> 
>> The reason that I am not using the NML namespace is because we're using a really simplified topology for the NSI plugfest. In the first instance there was even a suggestion to create some kind of NSI topology to use in the NSI demo that looked nothing like an NML topology.
>> 
>> I've coaxed the participants to start using a simple kind of topology now, in the future we can start using NML more.
> 
> If you believe this to be the right way forward, I suppose there is not a lot that can be done to change things at this point.  This still does not sound like the best idea to me, because I have a little experience in the area of ideas being 'impacted' into code.  Taking "no action" is a stronger force than taking action, and it seems to me that once there is a working implementation using this fake/minimal topology, there will not be a lot of momentum to change things that are in place and working.

The current focus of this plugfest is to get NSI implementations of the protocol working as a first step. Getting them to use any kind of topology is already a bonus.
My plan is to step this up and get them to use a more serious topology description after GLIF.

Jeroen.