[Nml-wg] XML Examples and Proposals

[Roman Łapacz]

W dniu 2012-03-12 22:43, Jason Zurawski pisze:
> 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.

Right. I like namespaces for layers as well but what if we have to have 
layers (hierarchy) which in fact represent the same category. An example 
I'm thinking is an aggregation.

Roman

>
> 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