On 18-07-2012 15:51, Roman Łapacz wrote:
To me IdRef is only for
referencing/reusing or
chaining existing elements. That's
all. Without inheritance. Simple use
case: a resource X is defined in a
topology storage/service TS1. X is
pointed in a topology
storage/service TS2 (e.g. to describe multi-domain
link). Use of IdRef for X in TS2 is
very useful.
So you want to use idRef ONLY for pointers to another
document, or also
pointers within the same document?
Again, why is it more useful than the use of id for X in
TS2?
In other words, in the following exactly, exactly what
information is
missing (and hence, what information would like to add to
RDF that is
now missing because RDF is missing the idRef)?
<nml:BidirectionalLink
id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mylink">
<nml:Link
id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mylink-a-to-b" />
<nml:Link
id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mylink-b-to-a" />
</nml:BidirectionalLink>
<nml:Link
id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mylink-a-to-b">
<nml:name>A to B</nml:name>
</nml:Link>
<nml:Link
id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mylink-b-to-a">
<nml:name>B to A</nml:name>
</nml:Link>
Sorry to drag this on, but I think that the standard should
not only say
it is useful, but also why it is useful, and how an
implementation
should behave differently upon seeing idRef instead of id.
(I presume
there is a difference in behaviour, otherwise they are the
same thing
and one can be removed.)