W dniu 2012-02-16 16:33, Freek Dijkstra pisze:
Jeff W. Boote wrote:
Computers don't care if this is 'Next' or 'ConnectedTo'. I think the issue ad hand is unfortunately a bit more complex.
The question at hand is basically how to describe the following (with apologies with my poor ASCII art skills)
port A link X port B link Y port C O------------------>O------------------>O
Roman described this as:
Port A relation=next/connectTo port B Port B relation=next/connectTo port C
In the NML schema it is currently defined as:
link X relation=source port A relation=sink port B link Y relation=source port B relation=sink port C
Previous year I noticed some reluctance in describing both Ports and Links in examples, and asked if there was need to simplify as follows:
link X relation=serialcompound link Y
(After which the discussion ended in "that's a might ugly word `serialcompound' there, that's how G.800 defined it and I wasn't creative enough to come up with something better".)
At this moment, neither "serialcompound" nor "connectTo" are valid NML constructs.
What I'm saying is that I would regret seeing all three options as "valid".
But if NSI wants to use paths/links as connected ports because of some reasons then I woul be open to let them do it this way. Other users/applications may prefer using links because of some other reasons. By setting the limits should we prevent various users/applications from utilizing NML? Do we want to be so strict? Extensions (namespaces) and minimal set of rules would be an answer. Roman
The current source/sink think is most flexible, but I'm happy to consider alternatives. Please discuss.
Regards, Freek