[Nml-wg] NML Relations 1: formal definition

[Aaron Brown]

On Jul 9, 2012, at 9:04 AM, Freek Dijkstra wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Currently, an NML Relation is defined as a relation between Network Objects.
> 
> This is a problem for relations between non-Network Objects, like the
> "locatedAt" relation which related a Network Object to a Location.
> However, Location is not a subclass of Network Object. Hence, this
> relation is formally invalid. Another example is in RDF, where the
> "next" relation is used between List Items, which are not Network Objects.
> 
> We can solve this three ways:
> 1) Make every a subclass of a Network Object
> 2) Remove the restriction that a NML Relation must be between Network
> Objects.
> 3) Make a distinction between NML Relation and other type of Relations.
> 
> For simplicity sake, I propose solution (2). A NML Relation (if we still
> like to define such beast) would be "any relation that is defined by the
> NML specs" rather than "any relation between two NML Network Objects".

I prefer #2 as well

Cheers,
Aaron

> 
> Freek
> _______________________________________________
> nml-wg mailing list
> nml-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg

ESCC/Internet2 Joint Techs
July 15-19, 2012 - Palo Alto, California
Hosted by Stanford University
http://events.internet2.edu/2012/jt-stanford/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nml-wg/attachments/20120712/73aa6b87/attachment-0001.html>