Hi Freek,
We had a longer discussion if NML should define services?
It was quickly clear to us that there are clearly two interpretations of the word "service":
I think there are many interpretations of Service. This is also related to my other comment about the multi-layer topology in the other thread. I think we should include an abstract Service in the base and that this Service can be extended in the various layer-specific schemata. This would allow the use of the Service element to describe all the use cases that you mentioned. As you mentioned, the reason to do this in the base is so that we can have a generic way to relate services to the network objects (or classes) that provide them. This is not the same as the specific services defined in GLUE or but it allows them to be incorporated into our model. best, martin