[Nml-wg] Example topology of Automated GOLE

[Roman Łapacz]

W dniu 2012-02-16 16:33, Freek Dijkstra pisze:
> Jeff W. Boote wrote:
>
>> Computers don't care if this is 'Next' or 'ConnectedTo'.
> I think the issue ad hand is unfortunately a bit more complex.
>
> The question at hand is basically how to describe the following (with
> apologies with my poor ASCII art skills)
>
> port A    link X    port B    link Y    port C
>    O------------------>O------------------>O
>
> Roman described this as:
>
>   Port A
>      relation=next/connectTo
>          port B
>   Port B
>      relation=next/connectTo
>          port C
>
> In the NML schema it is currently defined as:
>
>   link X
>      relation=source
>          port A
>      relation=sink
>          port B
>   link Y
>      relation=source
>          port B
>      relation=sink
>          port C
>
> Previous year I noticed some reluctance in describing both Ports and
> Links in examples, and asked if there was need to simplify as follows:
>
>   link X
>      relation=serialcompound
>          link Y
>
> (After which the discussion ended in "that's a might ugly word
> `serialcompound' there, that's how G.800 defined it and I wasn't
> creative enough to come up with something better".)
>
> At this moment, neither "serialcompound" nor "connectTo" are valid NML
> constructs.
>
> What I'm saying is that I would regret seeing all three options as "valid".

But if NSI wants to use paths/links as connected ports because of some 
reasons then I woul be open to let them do it this way. Other 
users/applications may prefer using links because of some other reasons. 
By setting the limits should we prevent various users/applications from 
utilizing NML? Do we want to be so strict? Extensions (namespaces) and 
minimal set of rules would be an answer.

Roman

> The current source/sink think is most flexible, but I'm happy to
> consider alternatives. Please discuss.
>
> Regards,
> Freek