I choose some arbitrary names for some attributes; I'm happy to discuss that in another thread.
I guess I should rename this thread to "other" ;) Jason Zurawski wrote:
<nml:link type="link" nm:id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:pathAC"> <nml:relation type="serialcompound" cl:type="partial"> <nml:segment nm:idRef="urn:ogf:network:example.net:segmentAB"/> </nml:relation> </nml:link>
Is there a reason you choose to introduce a new element (segment) instead of using link? I think we are all aware of the 'segment vs link' battles of past OGFs that have spanned many different working groups, and I was under the impression that the outcome was to use 'link' for all connections instead of switching between names.
I meant both to be a "nml:link" instance. My example is indeed confusing, and comes from my background in using RDF/XML. A better syntax proposal is indeed (note that nml:segment is replaced by nml:link, and nm:idRef is replaces by nm:id): <nml:link type="link" nm:id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:pathAC"> <nml:relation type="serialcompound" cl:type="partial"> <nml:link nm:id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:segmentAB"/> </nml:relation> </nml:link> In case you are curious why I created such a convoluted example, read on. (it's off-topic for the NML-WG though, and you may want to skip it) +------------------------------------------------+ | Link | +------------------------------------------------+ | id = urn:ogf:network:example.net:pathAC | | type = "link" | | ... | +------------------------------------------------+ | | | +------------------------------+ | | Relation | | +------------------------------+ |--| type = "serialcompound" | | | cl:type = "partial" | | | ... | | +------------------------------+ | | +------------------------------------------------+ | Link | +------------------------------------------------+ | id = urn:ogf:network:example.net:segmentAB | | ... | +------------------------------------------------+ In RDF, only objects can have properties. properties can not. So if I want to describe the above, I need to make both Links and Relations an object. The relation between two objects is always with a named attribute, so for RDF, one needs to create for the relation between a Link and a Relation object, and between a Relation and Link object, as in: <nml:Link rdf:about="urn:ogf:network:example.net:pathAC"> <nml:linktype>link</nml:linktype> <nml:hasrelation> <!-- attribute --> <nml:Relation> <nml:relationtype>serialcompound</nml:relationtype> <cl:type>partial</cl:type> <nml:segment rdf:resource="urn:ogf:network:example.net:segmentAB"/> </nml:Relation> </nml:hasrelation> </nml:Link> (observe that rdf:about is the same as nm:id, and rdf:resource is the same as nm:idRef) In XML, this can be a lot shorter, so I picked XML for brevity, but indeed forget to use the object name (nml:Link) instead of the made-up attributed name (nml:segemnt). Sorry for the confusion, Freek