On Sep 23, 2008, at 6:47 PM, Jeff W. Boote wrote:
First, I'm against coming up with multiple ways to do it, unless the multiple ways are based on completely different uses of the schema that will never interact. (Or unless we absolutely can't agree - which would seem a shame.) Lets not make interoperability any harder than we have to.
You're presuming a lot regarding our ability to agree. If we need to have one way to do it for NDL and GLIF compatibility and one way for perfSONAR and DCN, and there are ways to tell them apart and to translate between them, if necessary, then I don't see the harm. Agreeing on a small set is better than no agreement at all.
Second, I agree that it is in-scope for NML. However, it is just as in-scope for the other groups Aaron mentioned.
At a bare minimum the other groups Aaron mentioned (and probably others) should be invited in on the discussion.
They're been invited to the discussion as far as I know! If they haven't been, then let's invite them! martin