Jason Zurawski wrote:
So far, we have seen these two proposals:
<nml:link id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:link_A-to-C"> <nml:relation type="serialcompound"> ... </nmlserialcompound:relation> </nml:link>
I think you mean this instead:
<nml:link id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:link_A-to-C"> <nml:relation type="serialcompound"> ... </nml:relation> </nml:link>
Yes, you are right of course -- thanks for catching that.
I agree with Roman, the use of the 'relations' element is really not necessary here.
I am still not clear why you believe this element is necessary. It is a 'grouping' concept from what I can tell, but this does not add any inheritance into the sub elements except that of parent/child. The concept of namepsaces gives you the inheritance that I think you want.
The base element (<nml:relation type="serialcompound">) has the problem that it is hard to create a meaningful syntax validator. The subelement (<nmlserialcompound:relation>) has the problem all parser would need to know about the nmlserialcompound schema in advance, which hinders extensibility. (*) The subelement with extra parent element (<nml:relations><nmlserialcompound:relation>) does not have either of these two problems. Which of these 3 statements do you disagree with? Freek (*) I'm aware about some subtleties regarding my statement on the disadvantage of <nmlserialcompound:relation> -- a parser may still ignore it, not knowing it is a relation subclass -- I'm most happy to elaborate on that if you think that <nmlserialcompound:relation> is a better option than <nml:relations><nmlserialcompound:relation>.