Hi Candido;
- I think the structure of namespace could be explained
The original thinking was the NM-WG document, "An Extensible Schema for Network Measurement and Performance Data", would contain the entire explanation of namespaces (the idea itself coming from another OGF WG). Any future documents from related projects (NMC, NML, others?) would reference this and only note caveats to the original rule. The NM-WG doc is here:
https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15649?nav=1
And I think namespaces are in section 4. Does everyone think this is sufficient, or should we consider other options?
The explanation of namespaces is clear to me. But I have a comment about EventTypes. In 3.1 and in 7.1 I understand that the EventyType in a metadata MUST appear only one time. But in the last example in 5.4 is showing two event types and it says that those "MAY NOT appear". I think it should say "MUST NOT appear" unless there are cases where it makes sense to allow two or more event types. Also, the section 5 was a little confuse to me. I see that metadata can be merged but I don't get how they should be merged. I read it again and I'll send comments and ideas about this.
I am a little lost in your explanation, there is not a section 3.1 in the NMC Base document, are you referring to the NM-WG document instead? Let me try to clear up the eventType explanation anyway: - multiple eventTypes in a single metadata are possible and common, e.g. something from the 'characteristic' namespace and the 'tool' namespace. An example would be SNMP data: http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/tools/snmp/2.0 http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/characteristic/utilization/2.0 - The example you are referring to (page 30 in the nmc doc I think?) is poorly worded. The situation I was trying to describe is merging metadata where the eventTypes are not compatible. In this case 'errors' is very different than 'utilization' and shouldn't be merged. I will place a note in this to clear this up down the road. Does this help a little bit? Chaining is a hard concept, and this represents my view of how it works. I may have some details wrong. I think that Martin, Jeff, and Roman should carefully read these sections to check my accuracy in describing things. Thanks; -jason