Hi, apologize if you already discussed it or it's a silly question. I'm analysing the UML diagram in nml-base pdf doc and comparing Link and Path elements. If I'm not wrong it was said that the set of existing elements should be minimal as much as possible (reusable elements). Following this general rule I'm thinking that Link could be used instead of Path. Now I'm thinking about the case of circuit. Example: there may be 3 domains so we have 3 types of view: high (a path/circuit), medium (a link representing aggregated connection in a domain), low (links inside a domain). Can path be just a link with end nodes representing ends of circuits? regards, Roman
On 3 dec. 2010, at 16:06, Roman Łapacz <romradz@man.poznan.pl> wrote:
Hi,
apologize if you already discussed it or it's a silly question. I'm analysing the UML diagram in nml-base pdf doc and comparing Link and Path elements. If I'm not wrong it was said that the set of existing elements should be minimal as much as possible (reusable elements). Following this general rule I'm thinking that Link could be used instead of Path. Now I'm thinking about the case of circuit. Example: there may be 3 domains so we have 3 types of view: high (a path/circuit), medium (a link representing aggregated connection in a domain), low (links inside a domain). Can path be just a link with end nodes representing ends of circuits?
The difference between the two is that a Link is a combination of two uni-directional Links, and a Path is an ordered set of Network Elements.
So a Path defines a complete circuit, while a Link is a single bi-directional hop. Jeroen.
Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
The difference between the two is that a Link is a combination of two uni-directional Links, and a Path is an ordered set of Network Elements. So a Path defines a complete circuit, while a Link is a single bi-directional hop.
Doh, you are right Jeroen, I thought that Roman was talking about Unidirectional Link (=primary building block), not about the Link (=grouping). (Clearly, my mind is still thinking in bidirectional links, not our unidirectional links). That said, I do no longer see the need for a (unidirectional) Path object, as discussed at OGF30. Freek
Roman Łapacz wrote:
I'm analysing the UML diagram in nml-base pdf doc and comparing Link and Path elements. If I'm not wrong it was said that the set of existing elements should be minimal as much as possible (reusable elements). Following this general rule I'm thinking that Link could be used instead of Path.
Roman, you are absolute right, and this is in fact what was discussed at OGF30. Unfortunately, this was not yet changed in the document. I just committed a new diagram (removing Path and adding Bidirectional Port). If there are volunteers to make these changes in the text, you are sure to receive some Instant Karma (tm).
Now I'm thinking about the case of circuit. Example: there may be 3 domains so we have 3 types of view: high (a path/circuit), medium (a link representing aggregated connection in a domain), low (links inside a domain). Can path be just a link with end nodes representing ends of circuits?
Yes, it can. They are in fact all "Link Connections" in G.800 terminology, and there is no need for us to use a different term for "Link" and "Path". Key is that we need to find a way to relate the "high" (=end to end) Links to "medium" or "low" Links (=segments). This can be done by the "serial compound" relation as described at OGF 30. Again, this has not been transcribed in the schema document, and we need volunteers for that. Regards, Freek
participants (3)
-
Freek Dijkstra -
Jeroen van der Ham -
Roman Łapacz