[Nml-wg] URN urn:ogf:network

[Martin Swany]

Hi all,

>> Again, for class identifier, I don't have a preference for either
>> URL or URN in some OGF namespace (urn:ogf:network, or http://ogf.org/ns/network
>> , or similar).

I agree with URLs to identify classes.  As Aaron said, we'd only
been thinking of the URN style as instance identifiers.

>> As for instance identifiers, I have two major objections against "urn:ogf:network:domain=glif.is:3267
>> [...]
>> So the best choice in my view is to use "glif.is:3267" as an
>> identifier. It is short. It is unique. It is transparent to a
>> program (a unique string). It is easy to query ("WHERE domain STARTS
>> WITH "glif.is:".
>> It is human readable -- in short, it is all an identifier has to be.
>> Why make it more complex?

The real reason to type it is to you can refer to different types.
In the GLIF proposal, the thing after the domain (which you didn't
include in your example, but which is there if I'm reading it right)
is a circuit identifier, and only that.  With types, and edge can
refer to a distant node using as much information as it has.  One
side might only know the domain of the other side, or it might know
the node and port IDs.  That was one of the use cases that motivated
the attribute/value style in the URN.

> There are reasons for a bulkier, less context-sensitive identifier
> scheme, but I'm not sure the NML list is the right place to hash this
> out since the identifier schemes are relevant more for lookup and
> distribution than basic description. For the sake of NML, i'd prefer
> to leave it at "identifiers are globally unique strings".

I think that it is in scope for NML.  We might end up with more than
one way to do it, but I think that leaving it as just a string limits  
what we
can do.

best,
martin