|
|
|
Jeroen van der Ham: 11/30/2012 7:23 AM EST
|
| |
Comment: |
We have chosen the first option in the NML Schema document.
|
| |
Action: |
Update
Closed set to 11/30/2012
Status changed from Under discussion to Completed
|
|
|
Jason Zurawski: 08/16/2012 12:05 PM EDT
|
| |
Comment: |
I can learn to live with that.
|
| |
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
|
|
Jason Zurawski: 08/16/2012 8:42 AM EDT
|
| |
Comment: |
I still prefer '<service type="something" />' vs a dedicated 'ServiceType' object.
|
| |
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Freek Dijkstra: 08/08/2012 11:00 AM EDT
|
| |
Action: |
Update
Priority changed from 4 to 3
|
|
|
Freek Dijkstra: 08/08/2012 8:55 AM EDT
|
| |
Action: |
Update
Description changed from service object also uses type attribute, RDF uses:
"nmlserv:Switchingtype rdfs:subClassOf nml:Service ."
something to consider when we do translation between the two. to NML currently defines three services: AdaptationService, DeadaptationService and SwitchingService.
Proposal for syntax in RDF:
@prefix nml: <http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/base#">;
urn:ogf:...:myservice a nml:SwitchingService .
Proposal for syntax in XML:
<nml:SwitchingService id="...">
Alternative RDF and XML syntax:
@prefix nml: <http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/base#">;
urn:ogf:...:myservice a nml:SwitchingService .
nml:SwitchingService rdfs:isSubclassOf nml:Service .
<nml:Service type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/base#SwitchingService"; id="...">
Rationale for this proposal: because of the very different relations associated with a AdaptationService and a
SwitchingService (and later perhaps a tunable label service), the different services are described in a different way in
the document. This is slightly easier to write (e.g. "a Switching Service" instead of a "Service of type
SwitchingService"), so I thought it would be OK to use the same separation in the XML and RDF syntax.
Title changed from Service in XML and RDF to Service Syntax in XML and RDF
|
|
|
Freek Dijkstra: 07/20/2012 10:01 AM EDT
|
| |
Action: |
Update
Status changed from New to Under discussion
|
|
|
Freek Dijkstra: 07/20/2012 10:00 AM EDT
|
| |
Comment: |
Given the wildly different relations associated with a AdaptationService and a SwitchingService (and later perhaps a tunable label service), I
recommend to make these full fledged objects:
e.g.
<nml:AdaptationService id="...">
instead of
<nml:Service type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/base/adaptation" id="...">
|
| |
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Freek Dijkstra: 03/28/2012 6:11 PM EDT
|
| |
Action: |
Update
Category changed from Procedural to – Capabilities / Services
|
|
|
Freek Dijkstra: 03/28/2012 7:53 AM EDT
|
| |
Comment: |
Whatever we choose, let's use the same constructs for NML:Relation and NML:Service; they seem similar to me.
Given how we now define Relations, this would be (I'm copying Jeroen's comment here):
XML:
<nml:Service type="SwitchingType">
...
</nml:Service>
and RDF:
nmlserv:SwtichingType a nml:Service .
nmlserv:SwitchingType ... .
I don't have a strong preference, but would prefer to first decide on artf6535, since I suspect the solution there may have some implications here.
|
| |
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Jason Zurawski: 03/28/2012 7:47 AM EDT
|
| |
Comment: |
Ok, XML to remain unchanged, documentation will fix all problems. I can agree to that.
|
| |
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Jeroen van der Ham: 03/28/2012 7:42 AM EDT
|
| |
Comment: |
Possibly, but my initial idea was just to leave the XML notation as is, allow the RDF translation to use a different namespace.
We would note this in the document as an issue for the translation.
Sorry to cause the confusion.
|
| |
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Jason Zurawski: 03/28/2012 7:28 AM EDT
|
| |
Comment: |
Ok, so closer to this:
<!-- Generic -->
<nml:Service>
...
</nml:Service>
<!-- Special, where the 'SwitchingType' namespace is a subclass of the nml namespace. Type is redundant, but we can include it anyway -->
<SwitchingType:Service type="SwitchingType">
...
</SwitchingType:Service>
?
|
| |
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Jeroen van der Ham: 03/28/2012 7:22 AM EDT
|
| |
Comment: |
Sorry, I should have expanded my explanation:
In XML you would have:
<nml:Service type="SwitchingType">
...
</nml:Service>
Translating this to RDF would be something like:
nmlserv:SwtichingType a nml:Service .
nmlserv:SwitchingType ... .
|
| |
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Jason Zurawski: 03/28/2012 7:10 AM EDT
|
| |
Comment: |
So something like this:
<SwitchingType:Service ... >
<!-- ... -->
</SwitchingType:Service>
vs
<nml:Service type="SwitchingType" ...>
<!-- ... -->
</nml:Service>
?
|
| |
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Jeroen van der Ham: 03/28/2012 5:25 AM EDT
|
| |
Comment: |
In XML you would use something like:
<nml:Service type="SwitchingType/>
In RDF/OWL however, it is cleaner to make this a subclass of a Service.
I'm proposing that these are put in a separate namespace to make the translation between the two as easy as possible.
Not something really major, just something to consider when doing the translation.
|
| |
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Jason Zurawski: 03/27/2012 7:24 PM EDT
|
| |
Comment: |
Can this be explained more?
|
| |
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
|
