Hi, Here's a first attempt at an XML version of the topology description. On 24 May 2013, at 15:13, Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj@nordu.net> wrote:
Please let me know what you think.
3.1.1
This section leaves out the cs[2]ProviderEndPoint which we have previously used. However I think that the service class makes much more sense.
I believe we agreed in Charlottesville that we would go for the Services class to be in line with the Discovery Service description of services.
3.1.2 + 3.3
The term "link" is an odd choice IMHO. The common term for this is "url", or occasionally "endpoint" (main used with web services). I think the term "link" is particularly unfortunate as it occurs in describing network topology, where this word typically has another meaning.
This is in line with the Discovery Service, and I think John took this from other recommendations or implementations.
5.
The main reason we decided on a single format in Charlottesville, was so implementations would know exactly what that must be exported and must be able to parse. Hence I think that the "SHOULD" for parsing OWL syntax should be relaxed to "MAY" or "OPTIONAL".
The OWL example includes nsi:cs2ProviderEndpoint despite not being specified in the document. I think it can just be removed.
Should nml:Topology in the top be a nml:Node? I am left a bit puzzled about when to use topology and node now. Same with Port and PortGroup (I'll admit to now having read the full nml spec).
A Topology describes a network domain, and it can act like a Node. Theoretically, there is no difference between a Node and a Topology. Practically it's often easier to be able to differentiate between them. Jeroen.