Aaron Brown wrote: ink this will stop 3rd parties, leading to potential
name conflicts - It requires the OGF to define a document for each technology (each label and each adaptation).
Is this what we want?
If we offer best practices in defining the syntax, e.g. "if you're defining a new type, it should be of the form '[organization description].[type description]'", that could decrease the chance of overlap. OGF could then define standardized versions.
Good proposal. What would you think is a good syntax for organisation description? Just a random string (which may still give naming conflict there, although it greatly reduces those chances), or a reverse-DNS structure, as is used in Java classes and Mac OS X preferences (e.g. "org.example.myapp.parameter")? Also, should the NML-WG defined standard types have the form: 1. isSink 2. nml.isSink 3. nml.base.isSink 4. org.ogf.nml.isSink 5. org.ogf.nml.base.isSink 6. org.ogf.nml.base.20130301.isSink (the forms 3,5 and 6 would graciously solve the problem how to distinguish between "base" NML and NML extensions, as just proposed by Jason.) Freek