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
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
Hi all,
- 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.
I definitely agree that something like UML for the generic data model, independent of the actual schema, is the best way forward.
- 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.
Just to make it clear, we have not agreed within the NML-WG that we will exclusively use RDF. In fact, my understanding was that we agreed to define an ontology and describe how it would be rendered into the existing styles of NDL and NM-WG. As John points out, UML would be a good way forward here.
So we mainly need to aggree within NML-WG for the ontology we need in the considered context.
I fully agree with this. We need to consider the ontology first. We've had this issue before with LDAP vs XML and I think that we we learned is that this tends to sort itself out naturally. (Hint: we'll be using OWL in 2 years... :-) best, martin
participants (3)
-
John Vollbrecht
-
Martin Swany
-
Pascale VICAT-BLANC