Roman Łapacz wrote:
W dniu 2012-02-16 14:27, Freek Dijkstra pisze:
Hi Roman,
Sorry, I saw your new file after I send my email (insert rant about gray-listing here).
It seems that NSI uses a different topology concept than NML, using the (NDL-based?) connectedTo. This is different from what we have in the examples (relating either links with port using "source" and "sink", or as I proposed, directly connecting two links with "serialcompound" relation). Perhaps it is good to discuss this in today's call.
Nevertheless, it seems that the concepts are sufficiently equivalent to merge the NSI and NML topology concept.
My thinking is that NML would be more interesting and useful for users (in this case NSI) if we don't impose too many restrictions.
I agree if you are saying "don't impose too many restrictions on the network topology that users can describe". I disagree if you are saying "don't impose too many restrictions on the number of ways that users can describe the same topology". In both cases the core building blocks are (logical) ports and links between these logical ports, and I do not see any restrictions there (which I think is good), but I do see two different methods how this same topology is described (which I think is bad). Regards, Freek