[Nml-wg] Example topology of Automated GOLE

[Roman Łapacz]

W dniu 2012-02-15 14:12, Jerry Sobieski pisze:
> I am very nervous about this - we deliberatly did *NOT* use "port" in 
> NSI because of the overloaded connotation. The Service Termination 
> Point in NSI is *not* a port. ...not in the physical sense.   So we 
> need to understand what a NML "port" represents.

port in the nml-nsi namespace is not physical. This is an abstraction 
and represents STP. We could introduce new element nml-nsi:stp but is it 
really necessary?

Roman

>
> Was there an example for this?
>
> Thanks!
> Jerry
>
> On 2/15/12 7:41 AM, Roman Łapacz wrote:
>> W dniu 2012-02-15 13:20, Jeroen van der Ham pisze:
>>> On 15 Feb 2012, at 12:31, Roman Łapacz wrote:
>>>>> 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're already saying that an nml-nsi:STP is equivalent to an 
>>> nml:Port with some added behavior. I don't really see any reason why 
>>> connectedTo would not work in this case.
>>
>> Just to clarify, I propose nml-nsi:port, not nml-nsi:STP (port in the 
>> nml-nsi namespace would be STP).  "connectedTo" would work, no doubt, 
>> but the question is: should we use this if we already used "next" in 
>> circuit monitoring (and both mean the same).
>>
>>>>> - 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.
>>> There's a FOAF namespace in RDF which describes similar things about 
>>> a person. However, it's not really a standard I think.
>>> There's also the vCard standard, for which there is (I think) both 
>>> an RDF and XML notation.
>>
>> yes, vCard was my first candidate as well
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6351
>>
>> Roman
>>
>>> Jeroen.
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nml-wg mailing list
>> nml-wg at ogf.org
>> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg