On 09-07-2012 16:17, Roman Łapacz wrote:
please, take a look at the attachment. Waiting for comments.
Hi Roman, Are there any specifics you like us to comment on? I had a quick look, and these are things I would probably describe differently. version ------- Version is a serial number, akin to a serial number in DNS SOA records, I wouldn't make this a number (so it is easy to compare date), not a URN. Also, I probably would simply describe it as an XML attribute instead of child element, but that is admittedly a matter of preference.
<nml:Topology id="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:org">
<nml:name>Domain X</nml:name> <nml:version>urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:20120709<nml:version>
Suggested change:
<nml:Topology id="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:org" version="20120709">
<nml:name>Domain X</nml:name>
Implicit relations ------------------
<nml:Topology xmlns:nml="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/07/base/" id="urn:ogf:network:gn3.net:2012:org"> [...]
<nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/07/relation/hasTopology"> <nml:Topology idRef="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:org"/> <nml:Topology idRef="urn:ogf:network:domainy.net:2012:org"/> </nml:Relation>
[...] <nml:Topology id="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:org">
<nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/07/relation/hasNode"> <nml:node idRef="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:nodeA"/> </nml:Relation>
[...] </nml:Topology> </nml:Topology>
Some relations, including "hasTopology" and "hasNode" SHOULD be written implicitly. This was discussed in https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6537 and I very much value your feedback there. (I see that we never reached consensus on the exact wording there.) Suggested change:
<nml:Topology xmlns:nml="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/07/base/" id="urn:ogf:network:gn3.net:2012:org"> [...]
<nml:Topology idRef="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:org"/> <nml:Topology idRef="urn:ogf:network:domainy.net:2012:org"/>
[...] <nml:Topology id="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:org">
<nml:Node idRef="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:nodeA"/>
[...] </nml:Topology> </nml:Topology>
or even:
<nml:Topology xmlns:nml="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/07/base/" id="urn:ogf:network:gn3.net:2012:org">
[...] <nml:Topology id="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:org">
<nml:Node idRef="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:nodeA"/>
[...] </nml:Topology> </nml:Topology>
Case ---- See https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6534 You have written a few times:
nml:node nml:location nml:port
Suggested change:
nml:Node nml:Location nml:Port
locatedAt --------- You wrote:
<nml:node id="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:nodeA"> <nml:location idRef="urn:ogf:network:nordu.net:2011:redcity"/> [...] </nml:node>
I probably would have written:
<nml:Node id="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:nodeA"> <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/07/relation/locatedAt"> <nml:Location idRef="urn:ogf:network:nordu.net:2011:redcity"/> </nml:Relation> [...] </nml:node>
But I like your implicit relation better, so I propose to make locatedAt an implicit relation (if this was not already the case; I can't seem to find that.) Slashes -------
<nml:port idRef="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:A_port_ge-0/2/9-out"/>
Unfortunately, slashes are a reserved character, and not allowed in URNs. You will have to think of another identifier. I usually make up something like this:
<nml:port idRef="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:A:port_ge-0.2.9-out"/>
hasPort -------
<nml:port id="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:A_port_ge-0/2/9-out"> <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/07/relation/hasPort"> <nml:PortGroup idRef="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:domainx-domainy"/> </nml:Relation> </port>
<nml:port id="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:A_port_ge-0/2/9-in"> <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/07/relation/hasPort"> <nml:PortGroup idRef="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:domainx-domainy"/> </nml:Relation> </port>
I'm not entirely sure what you are describing here. hasPort was recently introduced to describe that a given Port is part of a larger PortGroup. Did you perhaps meant to write:
<nml:PortGroup id="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:domainx-domainy"> <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/07/relation/hasPort"> <nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:A_port_ge-0/2/9-out"/> </nml:Relation> </nml:PortGroup>
<nml:PortGroup id="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:domainx-domainy"> <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/07/relation/hasPort"> <nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:A_port_ge-0/2/9-in"/> </nml:Relation> </nml:PortGroup>
However, I'm still a bit of at a loss at the exact meaning -- above two PortGroups have the same identifier, but the Ports have a different directions. Did you intend to describe a PortGroup here, or a BidirectionalPort, or yet something else? Same for
<nml:port id="urn:ogf:network:domainy.net:2012:C_port_ge-5/2/7-out"> <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/07/relation/hasPort"> <nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:domainy.net:2012:B-to-C"/> </nml:Relation> </port>
Did you mean here that urn:ogf:network:domainy.net:2012:B-to-C is a Link instead? Eg.
<nml:Port id="urn:ogf:network:domainy.net:2012:C_port_ge-5/2/7-out"> <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/07/relation/isSource"> <nml:Link idRef="urn:ogf:network:domainy.net:2012:C-to-B"/> </nml:Relation> </nml:port>
(note the hasPort -> isSource, nml:Port -> nml:Link and B-to-C -> C-to-B) Links ----- You never seem to connect any of the urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:* identifiers to any of the urn:ogf:network:domainy.net:2012:* identifiers. How do you describe that domains X and Y are connected to each other? I may have overlooked it (If I stare too much at XML and I'm bound to miss the obvious). Typos ----- This is all perfectly valid NML, but likely typos nevertheless :)
<!-- --------------------------------- Doman X --------------------------------- --> <!-- --------------------------------- Doman Y --------------------------------- -->
<nml:location idRef="urn:ogf:network:nordu.net:2011:redcity"/>
<nml:port ...> .... </port>
Regards, Freek