[Nml-wg] Example topology of Automated GOLE

[Roman Łapacz]

W dniu 2012-02-15 11:47, Jeroen van der Ham pisze:
> Hi,
>
> On 14 Feb 2012, at 14:30, Roman Łapacz wrote:
>
>> - I've created a new namespace nml-nsi which groups NSI elements. This allows to avoid using type attribute to indicate that, for example, the network element represents the NS network.
> Seems sensible to me.
>
>> - I had a problem with the STP element because in general I didn't want to introduce new names if it's not really needed. Finally, I found out (correct me if I'm wrong) that we can treat it as a port, but specific one and belonging to NSI namespace. This may be new to the NSI team but I hope it's only a matter of terminology and does not violate some basic functionality definitions.
> I think that that is correct. An STP is a specialized form of a Port, one that is used to define the boundary between an intra-domain network service and some other service. This can be an inter-domain network service, or something like a PerfSonar server.
>
>> An example I'm sending contains only the topology description of PIONIER (I didn't want to waste too much time for mapping all domains included in the owl file). I propose to focus on examples and later prepare the schema file (xsd or rnc; or both). This approach may speed up our work.
> I agree. Most domains are roughly equal in setup, and certainly equal in constructs. Doing this for one domain is fine.
>
> On to the comments for your description:
>
> - You're using<nml:relation type="next">  to describe connections, this should be<nml:relation type="connectedTo">.

I proposed "next" because it was already used in the framework for 
circuit monitoring. I'm hesitating to introduce an other name which 
means the same (1. as I wrote I try to limit new names; 2. use of new 
name would be incompatible or inconsistent with that solution for 
circuit monitoring).  On the other hand, "connectedTo" is already used 
by NSI so I understand that some continuation is welcome. If you think 
that it's really important to keep "connectedTo" then I'm fine.

> - We don't have an nml:contact object at the moment, but it seems that we may indeed need one. However, defining the contact methods should perhaps be done using some other appropriate (standard) schema.

I'll try to find something. Any suggestions are welcome.

Roman

> Jeroen.