On Oct 8, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
Hi,
On 5 Oct 2012, at 14:48, Freek Dijkstra <freek.dijkstra@sara.nl> wrote:
Jeroen's proposal: "If there are 2 network elements with the same id attribute in a given document, the union of the two elements should be considered the canonical definition of the element"
Aaron's Rule 1: If there are 2 network elements with the same id attribute in a given document, the behavior is undefined.
I think so.
Some questions for Aaron's approach: - If you have a big database with measurements and topology information, would that mean you can only ever describe a network element once?
It depends on what you mean by describe. You can always annotate the network element: <Node> <Relation type="inherits-from"> <Node A /> </Relation> ... some measurement data about A ... </Node> You're not "defining" A, you're simply saying "I have information about A", and it's scoped by your context.
- How would you cope with updates and changes?
My recollection is that there is a version number attribute or a timeframe attribute during which they are valid (can't recall which). I'd be fine with having multiple definitions as long as each has a different version number, or non-overlapping timeframe. Then, if you ask for A, you know which attributes were valid when, and can use that to "scope" down the A you care about. (most recent, or the A or As that were valid during a given timeframe). Cheers, Aaron
Jeroen.
_______________________________________________ nml-wg mailing list nml-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg
TIP2013, University of Hawaii Mānoa January 13 - January 17, 2013, Honolulu, HI http://events.internet2.edu/2013/tip/