[Nsi-wg] Suggestions for revised NML XSD schema
Jeroen van der Ham
vdham at uva.nl
Tue Nov 12 05:50:34 EST 2013
Hi,
Just to make it clear: I have been the editor of the NML base schema document and in that role flogged you all into action. That document is now published. Furthermore, I’ve taken a new job where I do not have much time to dedicate to this. So I will not be able to take action, or push others to take action.
That being said, I completely agree with the points below, and would welcome an update, errata, or addendum (whichever form is appropriate in the OGF context).
Jeroen.
On 7 Nov 2013, at 13:35, Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj at nordu.net> wrote:
> Hi
>
> It seems we need a rehash of NML XML schema for support NSI. Here are some
> further suggestions for how to improve the schema. The changes should not
> change the semantics of NML, but just make it easier to parse.
>
> * Any element in PortGroup
>
> This is the main problem. John already has a fix for this.
> Should probably go through the NML schema and check that it is on everywhere.
>
> * Bidirectional ports after unidirectional ports
>
> In the current model a bidirectional port is composed of two unidirectional
> ports. When building a datastructure representation, this means that one has
> to construct a temporary value/object to track this mapping, as the data
> structure representing the undirectional ports have not yet been created.
> Having the bidirectional ports after the unidirectional removes this need,
> making the parsing simpler.
>
> * Replace nml:Relation
>
> The nml:Relation constructs are not very "XML". I suggest that instead of
> <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#hasInboundPort">
> one would use:
> <nml:InboundPorts>
> Several elements would have to be constructed for this though.
>
> * Identical List constructs
>
> The way list of bidirectional ports and unidirectional ports are created are
> different. Bidirectional ports are repeated in the topology element, where as
> unidirectional ports are contained under an element. I.e:
>
> <nml:Topology id=...>
> <nml:BidirectionalPort id=...>
> ...
> </nml:BidirectionalPort>
> <nml:BidirectionalPort id=...>
> ...
> </nml:BidirectionalPort>
>
> <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#hasInboundPort">
> <nml:PortGroup id=...>
> ...
> </nml:PortGroup>
> <nml:PortGroup id=...>
> ...
> </nml:PortGroup>
> </nml:Relation>
> </nml:Topology>
>
> There isn't really a wrong or right way to do this, but I think doing both is
> the worst option. I understand that bidirectional ports are a somewhat special
> things in NML, but they could still easily be contained in an element.
>
>
> Best regards, Henrik
>
> Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj at nordu.net>
> Software Developer, NORDUnet
>
> _______________________________________________
> nsi-wg mailing list
> nsi-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg
More information about the nsi-wg
mailing list