Hi,

an update is attached. Two changes:
- use of xCard for the contact element (rfc6351)
- I was thinking a bit about "next" vs "connectedTo" (I wouldn't like to have the situation when we there are different attribute values which mean the same; let's keep the set of xml/nml elements and their attribute values as small as possible). There is a solution which avoid the conflict of existing these two values in the NML world. I propose to use a namespae for type attribute in the relation element. In  the case of  topology for NSI we could have nml-nsi:type which ensures that the value "connectedTo" is known and accepted by application parsers.

Cheers,
Roman

W dniu 2012-02-15 13:41, Roman Łapacz pisze:

W dniu 2012-02-15 13:20, Jeroen van der Ham pisze:

On 15 Feb 2012, at 12:31, Roman Łapacz wrote:

On to the comments for your description:

- You're using<nml:relation type="next">   to describe connections, this should be<nml:relation type="connectedTo">.

I proposed "next" because it was already used in the framework for circuit monitoring. I'm hesitating to introduce an other name which means the same (1. as I wrote I try to limit new names; 2. use of new name would be incompatible or inconsistent with that solution for circuit monitoring).  On the other hand, "connectedTo" is already used by NSI so I understand that some continuation is welcome. If you think that it's really important to keep "connectedTo" then I'm fine.

We're already saying that an nml-nsi:STP is equivalent to an nml:Port with some added behavior. I don't really see any reason why connectedTo would not work in this case.

Just to clarify, I propose nml-nsi:port, not nml-nsi:STP (port in the nml-nsi namespace would be STP).  "connectedTo" would work, no doubt, but the question is: should we use this if we already used "next" in circuit monitoring (and both mean the same).

- We don't have an nml:contact object at the moment, but it seems that we may indeed need one. However, defining the contact methods should perhaps be done using some other appropriate (standard) schema.

I'll try to find something. Any suggestions are welcome.

There's a FOAF namespace in RDF which describes similar things about a person. However, it's not really a standard I think.
There's also the vCard standard, for which there is (I think) both an RDF and XML notation.

yes, vCard was my first candidate as well
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6351

Roman

Jeroen.

_______________________________________________
nml-wg mailing list
nml-wg@ogf.org
https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg

_______________________________________________
nml-wg mailing list
nml-wg@ogf.org
https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg