Pontz, Tobias wrote:
> are there possibilities for extending usage records with xml-elements, e.g.
>
> <ur:resource ur:description=”jsdl”>
> <jsdl:JobDescription>
> <jsdl:Application>
> <jsdl:ApplicationName>/bin/true</jsdl:ApplicationName>
> </p:Application>
> </jsdl:JobDescription>
> </ur:resource>
For adding structured content, the only alternative I can think of is
defining your own schema that extends the UR directly. See attached for
how to do this, plus an example of a valid combined document.
BTW, the ApplicationName shouldn't be /bin/true but rather the "abstract
name" of the app; the pathname goes in the jsdl-posix:Executable element
(or equivalent, depending on what profile you're using). Yes, it doesn't
matter so much here, but for a case where it *is* quite different,
consider this: I have a case where the application is called "ANSYS CFX"
and the pathname is /opt/modules/ansys/someversion/xeon/bin/cfx5solve
(or something like that). There's no wholly logical connection from one
to the other. The app name is, if you will, the name of the thing to run
in terms that users like, and the exe name is the name of the thing to
run in terms that computers (and sysadmins) like.
But that's off-topic for the UR-WG. :-)
> I know that the example won’t work because ur:resource is of type
> string. I am looking for a possibility without modifying the ur-schema.
Your choices are clear. Either extend the schema (see attached for how)
or encode the JSDL as a string and put that in a normal UR Resource
(ugly as anything, but needs no schema hacking at all). What you *can't*
do is extend the UR Resource type to add XML Element content; it's a
schema failure if you do that (since Resource is of "simple" type).
Since we're magically combining UR and JSDL, I've Cc'ed the JSDL-WG too.
Donal.
