W dniu 2012-07-11 15:26, Freek Dijkstra pisze:
On 11-07-2012 15:16, Roman Łapacz wrote:
<!-- COMMENT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --> <!-- I propose to use new Relation="representedBy" --> <!--- when an object (in this case a Link can be represented by an other. Definition of them is the same! -->
<nml:BidirectionalLink id="urn:ogf:network:domainy.net:2012:domainx-domainy-domainx"> <nml:Relation type"http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/07/relation/representedBy"> <nml:Link id="urn:ogf:network:domainx.net:2012:domainx-domainy-domainx"> <nml:Relation> </nml:Link>
I'm not (yet) sure what you mean with this definition. Can you elaborate a bit?
My first thought was that you meant an identity relation, like 'isAlias', but since these are two different objects, I guess it's something different. To me, a BidirectionalLink is just a grouping of two Links, with the (implicit) "hasLink" relation.
Perhaps a short example in words my help me understand.
The question is which domain name should be included in the URN of an inter-domain link. In this case domain x or domain y. One could say that one of those two (that's fine and I remember a discussion about this problem in the OGF meeting). But we could also create two bidirectional links and one of them is just an an alias (the best name but I wasn't sure if I can use it as I'm not 100% sure of the definition of isAlias used in the NSI example). Roman
Disclaimer: I haven't found the time yet to go through the 2nd and 3rd update yet.
Thanks, Freek