|
|
|
Jeroen van der Ham: 11/30/2012 8:08 AM EST
|
| |
Action: |
Update
Closed set to 11/30/2012
Status changed from Last Call to Completed
|
|
|
|
|
Jeroen van der Ham: 09/05/2012 6:57 AM EDT
|
| |
Comment: |
I agree with the conclusion. The only remark that I have is that RDF namespaces are allowed to end with any character, not just "#" or "/". Although
it certainly is best practice to use either of those.
|
| |
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Freek Dijkstra: 09/05/2012 6:28 AM EDT
|
| |
Action: |
Update
Status changed from Need proposal to Last Call
|
|
|
Freek Dijkstra: 09/05/2012 6:28 AM EDT
|
| |
Action: |
Update
Description changed from NML elements and attributes are be defined in a NML schema, identified by a IRI.
The general syntax for IRI is defined in RFC 3987. The syntax of IRI for OGF schema is defined in GFD.084.
The allowed form MUST be:
namespace = common-part [specific-part ] common-part = scheme customs domain
scheme = ( “http” | extension ) “://” customs = “schemas” | extension
domain = “.ggf.org” | “.ogf.org” | extension specific-part = project version [ project | part ] project = “/” <
project acronym>
version = “/” version-year “/” version-month version-year = 4DIGIT
version-month = 2DIGIT
part =“/”token[part]
extension = token
Thus for the NML base schema, this seems to boil down to:
For the base schema:
http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/nml
For subordinate schema:
http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/ethernet
Proposal 1: Use http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/nml
(guaranteed GFD.84 compliant)
Proposal 2: Use http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/base
(GFD.84 compliant if one argues that /base is also a "subordinate" schema) to NML elements and attributes are be defined in a NML schema, identified by a URI (or IRI).
The general syntax for IRI is defined in RFC 3987. The syntax of IRI for OGF schema is defined in GFD.084.
* We will use the same URI for both XML and RDF.
- It is *best practice* to end a XML namespace in a alphanumeric characters, thus not in "/" or "#", although it is
perfectly valid to do so.
- It is *not possible* to end a RDF namespace in a alphanumeric character, and it is *best practice* to end an RDF
namespace in "#", but other punctuation marks such as "/" are valid too.
- GFD.084 recommends the syntax "http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/nml".
Proposal:
For the base schema:
http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/base#
For subordinate schema:
http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/ethernet#
After publication, we will publish a HTML document at this schema pointing to (a) the GFD standard, (b) the XML schema
and (c) the RDF schema. Pointers are -if possible- augmented with computer readable (e.g. RDDL ) pointers.
We will pick a date now, so implementations can start using that. Schemas that are published before the NML-base
document is ratified MUST contain a large warning "DRAFT SCHEMA", but can use these URIs.
|
|
|
Freek Dijkstra: 08/08/2012 10:25 AM EDT
|
| |
Action: |
Update
Assigned To set to Freek Dijkstra
Category changed from Procedural to Identifiers
Priority changed from 4 to 2
|
|
|
Freek Dijkstra: 08/08/2012 4:20 AM EDT
|
| |
Comment: |
Jeroen van der Ham wrote to the mailing list:
- Namespaces in XML are used for scoping, in XML the element name and namespace are separate parts in identifying a single thing.
- Namespaces in RDF are used like prefixing, the element name and namespace are concatenated to form a single identifying URI.
- It is *best practice* to not end XML namespaces in "/" or "#", but it is perfectly valid to do so, and many standards do.
- It is *best practice* to end an RDF namespace in "#", but it is perfectly valid to use something else, some standards also use "/".
- The RDF standard states that "rdf:id" values are transformed by appending "#" to the namespace, and then appending the value. In practice "rdf:id"
is not used.
- The RDF syntax further complicates things by stating informatively that implementations must add a "/" to the end of a namespace if it is a
hierarchical namespace.
With that in mind, I would propose that we use http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/nml/ as the namespace, so that we can use the same for both XML and
RDF.
|
| |
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Freek Dijkstra: 07/26/2012 10:24 AM EDT
|
| |
Comment: |
I withdraw the above proposal.
RDF and XML namespaces are sufficiently different that we need to answer the following 3 questions first:
A few high-level questions:
1. How do we want to translate URIs between RDF and XML?
By a lookup table or by some general procedure?
2. Do we want to use (roughly) the same URI for the XML and RDF schema?
3. If you answered "yes" to question #2, what should be publish at
this URI?
Ad 1: The advantage of a lookup table is that it works for all syntaxes
(URIs ending in hash, slash or anything else), but implementations need
to learn about the URI before they can support future extensions.
The advantage of a procedure is that is works for future NML extensions,
but requires that all NML extensions must adhere to a particular syntax.
Ad 2: Are we going to use "http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/base" and
"http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/base#" or do we prefer to publish
the schema at the defined location. In that case, we need distinct URI.
E.g. "http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/base/xml" and
"http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/base/rdf#".
Ad 3. A usual trick employed by OASIS is to put up a HTML page which
points to both the standard, and the schema(s). E.g.
"http://docs.oasis-open.org/tamie/xtemp/200909". There is also a (little
used?) standard to add computer readable pointers to the schemata in the
HMTL document. See http://www.rddl.org/
|
| |
Action: |
Update
Status changed from Under discussion to Need proposal
|
|
|
|
|
Freek Dijkstra: 07/18/2012 8:31 AM EDT
|
| |
Comment: |
Shall we also stick a date (version) to the schema yet, or leave it up for last change before publication? I've started using 2013/10 around 2010
mostly as a joke. Given the 90-day public comment, I suspect that the actual publication can be first half of 2013.
|
| |
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Freek Dijkstra: 07/13/2012 10:32 AM EDT
|
| |
Comment: |
We probably also need:
* Namespace for relation types
* Namespace for Service types
* Namespace for port/link encodings
* Namespace for label types
* Namespace for parameter names (e.g. noReturnTraffic for Links, label conversion for Switching Services)
* Namespace for Ethernet technology
* Namespace for WDM technology
|
| |
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Freek Dijkstra: 07/13/2012 10:26 AM EDT
|
| |
Action: |
Update
Description changed from NML elements and attributes are be defined in a NML schema, identified by a IRI.
The general syntax for IRI is defined in RFC 3987. The syntax of IRI for OGF schema is defined in GFD.084.
The allowed form MUST be:
namespace = common-part [specific-part ] common-part = scheme customs domain
scheme = ( “http” | extension ) “://” customs = “schemas” | extension
domain = “.ggf.org” | “.ogf.org” | extension specific-part = project version [ project | part ] project = “/” <
project acronym>
version = “/” version-year “/” version-month version-year = 4DIGIT
version-month = 2DIGIT
part =“/”token[part]
extension = token
Thus for the NML base schema, this seems to boil down to:
For the base schema:
http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/nml
For subordinate schema:
http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/ethernet
to NML elements and attributes are be defined in a NML schema, identified by a IRI.
The general syntax for IRI is defined in RFC 3987. The syntax of IRI for OGF schema is defined in GFD.084.
The allowed form MUST be:
namespace = common-part [specific-part ] common-part = scheme customs domain
scheme = ( “http” | extension ) “://” customs = “schemas” | extension
domain = “.ggf.org” | “.ogf.org” | extension specific-part = project version [ project | part ] project = “/” <
project acronym>
version = “/” version-year “/” version-month version-year = 4DIGIT
version-month = 2DIGIT
part =“/”token[part]
extension = token
Thus for the NML base schema, this seems to boil down to:
For the base schema:
http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/nml
For subordinate schema:
http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/ethernet
Proposal 1: Use http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/nml
(guaranteed GFD.84 compliant)
Proposal 2: Use http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/base
(GFD.84 compliant if one argues that /base is also a "subordinate" schema)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freek Dijkstra: 07/13/2012 8:07 AM EDT
|
| |
Action: |
Update
Description changed from NML elements and attributes are be defined in a NML schema, identified by a IRI.
The general syntax for IRI is defined in RFC 3987. The syntax of IRI for OGF schema is defined in GFD.084.
The allowed form MUST be:
namespace = common-part [specific-part ] common-part = scheme customs domain
scheme = ( “http” | extension ) “://” customs = “schemas” | extension
domain = “.ggf.org” | “.ogf.org” | extension specific-part = project version [ project | part ] project = “/” <
project acronym>
version = “/” version-year “/” version-month version-year = 4DIGIT
version-month = 2DIGIT
part =“/”token[part]
extension = token
Thus for the NML base schema, this seems to boil down to:
http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/nml-base
to NML elements and attributes are be defined in a NML schema, identified by a IRI.
The general syntax for IRI is defined in RFC 3987. The syntax of IRI for OGF schema is defined in GFD.084.
The allowed form MUST be:
namespace = common-part [specific-part ] common-part = scheme customs domain
scheme = ( “http” | extension ) “://” customs = “schemas” | extension
domain = “.ggf.org” | “.ogf.org” | extension specific-part = project version [ project | part ] project = “/” <
project acronym>
version = “/” version-year “/” version-month version-year = 4DIGIT
version-month = 2DIGIT
part =“/”token[part]
extension = token
Thus for the NML base schema, this seems to boil down to:
For the base schema:
http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/nml
For subordinate schema:
http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/ethernet
|
|
|
|
