Re: [Nml-wg] Fwd: Network Markup Language Working Group (NML-WG)

Dear all, Just two small comments: - I think NM-WG already proposed a data model in UML (In its first GFD document). So, may be NML can propose a UML version for simplifying the discussion between the two groups as suggested by John. - RDF is the best choice for letting different communities develop their own ontologies and make them interoperable. I think it is a very good choice made by the NML group. So we mainly need to aggree within NML-WG for the ontology we need in the considered context. Pascale Le 15 oct. 07 à 15:22, John Vollbrecht a écrit :

Begin forwarded message:

...

From: John Vollbrecht Date: October 15, 2007 8:58:41 AM GMT-04:00 To: Martin Swany Cc: John Vollbrecht , ghpn-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: Network Markup Language Working Group (NML-WG)

Martin and Paola -

Thanks for the reminder of this, and I hope you make good progress on creating NML.

I am not expert at data base representation methods, but it does seem that it would be good to have a common understanding of what is to be described. I know that at least two methods of representation - NDL and the NMWG schema - are close. Coming to agreement on a common method would be wonderful in terms of getting applications developed in different "spheres of influence" to be able to work together. I believe an (at least informal) minimal goal of this group is to define a "data model" such that both NDL and NMWG methods (if they continue independently) will be able to do a mechanical translation between each other.

This ability to do mechanical translation implies that both have a common data model that is represented in different form. I suggest that this data model be the first item of work for the group, rather than trying to decide which representation method the group will choose - since at a minimum both should be possible.

If a common data model is chosen, then perhaps discussion of the best way to represent it for different (or all) applications can follow.

Of course, there is the question of how a common data model is represented in the first place. I am not sure what this should be, but I suggest that a UML representation or a Entity Relationship model - something graphical - might be useful.

I hope this is helpful. Best luck to all in working this out -

John

On Oct 14, 2007, at 7:56 PM, Martin Swany wrote:

...

Hi all,

Sorry for the wide distribution. We wanted to make you aware (remind you in some cases) of the new working group called the Network Markup Language WG (NML-WG.) From the charter:

"The purpose of the Network Mark-up Language Working Group is to combine efforts of multiple projects to describe network topologies, so that the outcome is a standardised network description ontology and schema, facilitating interoperability between different projects."

The relationship of this group to the NM-WG is obvious as network measurement are a key user of representations of network topology. For the GHPN, those interested in dynamic Grid networks should be interested in the NML-WG as it represents a basis for topology exchange and pathfinding.

Essentially, many groups have a need to represent network elements, and we believe that a single representation is ideal. That's a little misleading in that various levels of resolution make sense at different times, but some of us have the sense that a single representation framework can accomplish that.

For more details, to participate, or to throw fruit and tell us the problem is solved/unsolvable/irrelevant or just plain out of our feeble depth, please join us in Seattle at OGF21.

best regards, Martin and Paola

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