[Nml-wg] Extensability (was: Labels)

[Freek Dijkstra]

Aaron Brown wrote:

ink this will stop 3rd parties, leading to potential
>>    name conflicts
>>  - It requires the OGF to define a document for each technology
>>    (each  label and each adaptation).
>>
>> Is this what we want?
> 
> If we offer best practices in defining the syntax, e.g. "if you're
> defining a new type, it should be of the form '[organization
> description].[type description]'", that could decrease the chance of
> overlap. OGF could then define standardized versions.

Good proposal.

What would you think is a good syntax for organisation description? Just
a random string (which may still give naming conflict there, although it
greatly reduces those chances), or a reverse-DNS structure, as is used
in Java classes and Mac OS X preferences (e.g.
"org.example.myapp.parameter")?

Also, should the NML-WG defined standard types have the form:
 1. isSink
 2. nml.isSink
 3. nml.base.isSink
 4. org.ogf.nml.isSink
 5. org.ogf.nml.base.isSink
 6. org.ogf.nml.base.20130301.isSink

(the forms 3,5 and 6 would graciously solve the problem how to
distinguish between "base" NML and NML extensions, as just proposed by
Jason.)

Freek