[Nml-wg] Example topology of Automated GOLE

[Freek Dijkstra]

Roman Łapacz wrote:

>> 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
>>
[...]
>> 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 would 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.

I do not see how the current source/sink syntax "prevent various
users/applications from utilizing NML".

I agree it is not the most compact syntax out there. But I think it
makes it possible to describe the network topology that NSI uses.

Again, that should be the restriction: can it describe the desired
topology. Not: does it match the syntactical constructs we currently have.

Freek