[Nml-wg] XML Examples and Proposals

[Jason Zurawski]

Hi Freek/All;

On 3/12/12 2:16 PM, thus spake Freek Dijkstra:
> Jason Zurawski wrote:
>
>>> I came to realise that lifetime and version are two different concepts.
>>>
>>> A lifetime signifies a duration (e.g. of a reserved link), while a
>>> version is a sequence number to track updates of a 'document' (where
>>> 'document' is a network description).
>>
>> then why not use the versioned namespace?  Thats why we put versions in
>> namespaces?
>>
>> <nml1:topo />
>>
>> <nml2:topo />
>
> I did not mean versioning of the schema, but versioning of the
> (topology) instance.
>
> E.g.
>
> F: "Hey guy's, this is my latest network!"
>
> <nml:topo id="freekishnet" version="2012-03-12">
>     <!-- awesome stuff -->
> </nml:topo>
>
> (... After a well deserved night's sleep ...)
>
> F: "Hey guys, I added a unloaded swallow to my network today, totally
> putting yesterday's network in shame!"
>
> <nml:topo id="freekishnet" version="2012-03-13">
>    <!-- even more awesome stuff -->
> </nml:topo>
>
> It has the same identifier, but because it has a different version, you
> know which one is the latest-and-greatest.

This still seems like a lifetime to me:

> <nml:topo id="freekishnet">
>     <lifetime>
>       <start>Sun Mar 11 13:25:33 EDT 2012</start>
>       <end>Mon Mar 12 17:20:00 EDT 2012</end>
>     </lifetime>
>     <!-- awesome stuff -->
> </nml:topo>
>
> <nml:topo id="freekishnet">
>     <lifetime>
>       <start>Mon Mar 12 17:20:00 EDT 2012</start>
>       <!-- lack of end or duration means current? -->
>     </lifetime>
>     <!-- more awesome stuff -->
> </nml:topo>

It becomes explicit that one has a shelf life, and the other is ongoing. 
  With 'version' you are left with an arbitrary mark that something is 
different (and it may be the case that its a date, but it could be just 
'1' or '2a').  If we see the later being more common, I suppose the use 
case is different and in this case we may want both to be allowed.

-jason