[Nml-wg] hasSource/hasSink vs. isSource/isSink

[Roman Łapacz]

Hi,

I've analysed the list of relations in artf6547 and it seems that the 
following snippet (taken from the example file I recommended in my 
previous email) is wrong:

<nml:Link id="urn:ogf:network:domainy.net:2012:B-to-C">
<nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/relation/hasSource">
<nml:Port 
idRef="urn:ogf:network:domainy.net:2012:B:port_ge-1.0.8.1501-out"/>
</nml:Relation>
<nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/relation/hasSink">
<nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:domainy.net:2012:C:port_ge-5.2.7.1501-in"/>
</nml:Relation>
</nml:Link>


It uses hasSource/hasSink relations but according to the list only 
isSource/isSink are permitted. So the structure should be transformed into:

<nml:Port id="urn:ogf:network:domainy.net:2012:B:port_ge-1.0.8.1501-out">
<nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/relation/isSource">
<nml:Link idRef="urn:ogf:network:domainy.net:2012:B-to-C"/>
</nml:Relation>
</nml:Port>

<nml:Port id="urn:ogf:network:domainy.net:2012:C:port_ge-5.2.7.1501-in">
<nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/relation/isSink">
<nml:Link idRef="urn:ogf:network:domainy.net:2012:B-to-C"/>
</nml:Relation>
</nml:Port>

<nml:Link idRef="urn:ogf:network:domainy.net:2012:B-to-C">
</nml:Link>


Am I right?
Roman



W dniu 2012-08-21 12:36, Roman Łapacz pisze:
> W dniu 2012-08-17 16:49, Jeroen van der Ham pisze:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for the examples!
>>
>> Only thing that I see is that you wrote "lacatedAt".
>>
>> Then again, I'm not entirely sure that we need that Relation.
>
> Updated. Now it's implicit. Also I've updated SwitchingService adding 
> relations (hasInboundPort, hasOutboundPort) to the Node. Previously I 
> didn't do that because I thought that their presence  in the 
> SwitchingService element was enough. But now I'm thinking that the 
> service does not have to include all ports existing in the node so the 
> contents of SwitchingService and Node may be different (in this 
> example they are the same).
>
> I've made some changes in two example files which in my opinion could 
> be used as appendixes in the doc (present nicely how a complete nml 
> topology file may look like). Please, take a look at them to make sure 
> everything is OK.
>
>   
> https://forge.ogf.org/svn/repos/nml-examples/201207-groups-and-labels/groups-and-labels.xml
>   
> https://forge.ogf.org/svn/repos/nml-examples/201207-compoundlink/serial-compound.xml
>
>
> Roman
>
>
>>
>> I've tried to make a list of the implicit relations that I see, and I 
>> came to the following:
>>
>> - hasTopology
>> - hasNode
>> - implementedBy
>> - hasService
>> - hasPort
>> - hasLabel
>> - hasLabelGroup
>> - hasLink
>> - locatedAt
>> - existsDuring
>>
>> Is that list complete?
>>
>> Jeroen.
>>
>> On 17 Aug 2012, at 16:09, Roman Łapacz<romradz at man.poznan.pl>  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> attached a draft of Example section (for now it's MS Word document). 
>>> I tried to make it as simple and clear as possible.  Structures are 
>>> not to heavy and names are very general. Waiting for comments
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Roman
>>> <Examples-doc-20120814.docx>_______________________________________________ 
>>>
>>> nml-wg mailing list
>>> nml-wg at ogf.org
>>> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nml-wg mailing list
> nml-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nml-wg/attachments/20120821/caaf9172/attachment.html>