[Nml-wg] XML Examples and Proposals

[Jason Zurawski]

Hi Roman/All;

I would rather let the namespace tell you information about 'layers' if 
possible, this is how we treat other elements (e.g. same namespace = 
same layer, different namesapces a merge in layers).  If we do this, I 
believe the relationship doesnt need a specific 'name' or 'action', but 
I haven't thought about the implications fully.

Thanks;

-jason

On 3/12/12 3:39 PM, thus spake Roman Łapacz:
>>>> Because of this, I would claim that a public/private topo are both at
>>>> the same 'level', and can be related, and shouldn't be defined within
>>>> each other.
>>>
>>> Do you mean same XML 'level'? e.g.:
>>>
>>> <nml:Topology id="aaaaaaa">
>>> <nml:Relation type="hasSubtopology">
>>> <nml:Topology idRef="urn:ogf:network:a.net:subtopo"/>
>>> </nml:Relation>
>>> ...
>>> </nml:Topology>
>>> <nml:Topology id="urn:ogf:network:a.net:subtopo">
>>> ...
>>> </nml:Topology>
>>
>> Yes, basically have them be defined independently and linked later as
>> you note here. 2 quick use cases:
>
> Can we say that we may have two options of joining the topologies: 1)
> horizontally (the same layer) and 2) vertically (different layers)
>
> example for 1)
> <nml:toplogy id="urn:ogf:network:a.net:topoX"">
> <nm:relation type="merge">
> <nml:toplogy idRef="urn:ogf:network:a.net:topoY"/>
> </nm:relation>
> </nml:topology>
>
> I use the word "merge" but it could be something different.
>
> example for 2)
> <nml:toplogy id="urn:ogf:network:a.net:topoX"">
> <nm:relation type="adaptation">
> <nml:toplogy idRef="urn:ogf:network:a.net:subtopoX"/>
> </nm:relation>
> </nml:topology>
>
> I hope I understand "adaptation" the right way (again, this could be a
> different name). This relation type could be used each time we want to
> have sub-layers (for example, also for ports or links).
>
> It would be up to a user/application which topology element/container is
> shared.
>
> Roman