|
Jeroen van der Ham: 11/30/2012 8:00 AM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
Closed set to 11/30/2012
Status changed from Last Call to Completed
|
|
Freek Dijkstra: 09/07/2012 3:29 AM EDT
|
|
Action: |
Update
Status changed from Under discussion to Last Call
|
|
Freek Dijkstra: 09/06/2012 9:54 AM EDT
|
|
Comment: |
I changed:
nml:hasInboundPort a nml:Relation .
to
nml:hasInboundPort rdfs:subPropertyOf nml:Relation .
After discussion with Jeroen.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Freek Dijkstra: 09/06/2012 9:53 AM EDT
|
|
Action: |
Update
Description changed from RDF regards an NML relations as any other property. In order to distinguish in RDF between
<nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/10/base#hasInboundPort">
and
<nml:hasInboundPort>
Propose: RDF needs to add the following triplet for all NML relations:
nml:hasInboundPort a nml:Relation .
Note: a NML version 1 compliant client does not need to add the these triplets for relations defined in version 1 of NML
, but it MUST include them for other relations if they are used in the description. Eg. if it is using a relation
defined in the experimental extension schema.
Example 1: the following two syntaxes are equivalent.
RDF:
@prefix nml: <http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/10/base#> .
nml:hasInboundPort a nml:Relation .
urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mynode a nml:Node .
urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mynode nml:hasInboundPort urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:myport .
urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:myport a nml:Port .
XML:
<nml:Node id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mynode">
<nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/10/base#hasInboundPort">
<nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:myport" />
</nml:Relation>
</nml:Node>
Example 2: the following two syntaxes are equivalent (note the missing "nml:hasInboundPort a nml:Relation ." line)
RDF:
@prefix nml: <http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/10/base#> .
urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mynode a nml:Node .
urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mynode nml:hasInboundPort urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:myport .
urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:myport a nml:Port .
XML:
<nml:Node id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mynode">
<nml:hasInboundPort">
<nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:myport" />
</nml:hasInboundPort>
</nml:Node> to RDF regards an NML relations as any other property. In order to distinguish in RDF between
<nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/10/base#hasInboundPort">
and
<nml:hasInboundPort>
Propose: RDF needs to add the following triplet for all NML relations:
nml:hasInboundPort rdfs:subPropertyOf nml:Relation .
Note: a NML version 1 compliant client does not need to add the these triplets for relations defined in version 1 of NML
, but it MUST include them for other relations if they are used in the description. Eg. if it is using a relation
defined in the experimental extension schema.
Example 1: the following two syntaxes are equivalent.
RDF:
@prefix nml: <http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/10/base#>; .
nml:hasInboundPort rdfs:subPropertyOfnml:Relation .
urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mynode a nml:Node .
urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mynode nml:hasInboundPort urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:myport .
urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:myport a nml:Port .
XML:
<nml:Node id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mynode">
<nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/10/base#hasInboundPort">
<nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:myport" />
</nml:Relation>
</nml:Node>
Example 2: the following two syntaxes are equivalent (note the missing "nml:hasInboundPort rdfs:subPropertyOfnml:
Relation ." line)
RDF:
@prefix nml: <http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/10/base#>; .
urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mynode a nml:Node .
urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mynode nml:hasInboundPort urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:myport .
urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:myport a nml:Port .
XML:
<nml:Node id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mynode">
<nml:hasInboundPort">
<nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:myport" />
</nml:hasInboundPort>
</nml:Node>
|
|
Jason Zurawski: 09/05/2012 10:35 AM EDT
|
|
Comment: |
fine with me
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Freek Dijkstra: 09/05/2012 9:35 AM EDT
|
|
Action: |
Update
Status changed from Need proposal to Under discussion
|
|
Freek Dijkstra: 09/05/2012 9:34 AM EDT
|
|
Action: |
Update
Description changed from RDF does not differentiate between NML relations and other relations.
A) If a relation is translated from RDF to XML, how to determine if the relation is a NML relation or not?
E.g. the following code
@prefix nml: <http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/10/base#>
@prefix nmlrel: <http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/10/relation#>
urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mynode a nml:Node
urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mynode nmlrel:hasInboundPort urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:myport
urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:myport a nml:Port
Can either translate to:
<nml:Node id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mynode">
<nmlrel:hasInboundPort>
<nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:myport" />
</nmlrel:hasInboundPort>
</nml:Node>
or to:
<nml:Node id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mynode">
<nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/10/relation#hasInboundPort">
<nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:myport" />
</nml:Relation>
</nml:Node>
Options:
1. Use nml:Relation for relations in the http://schemas.ogf.org/nml namespace.
2. Use nml:Relation for a set of predefined relations.
3. Add some syntax to RDF to differentiate between a nml:Relation and some other relation
4. Never use a nml:Relation, even not for relations in the http://schemas.ogf.org/nml namespace.
5. Always use a nml:Relation, even for relations outside the http://schemas.ogf.org/nml namespace.
to RDF regards an NML relations as any other property. In order to distinguish in RDF between
<nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/10/base#hasInboundPort">
and
<nml:hasInboundPort>
Propose: RDF needs to add the following triplet for all NML relations:
nml:hasInboundPort a nml:Relation .
Note: a NML version 1 compliant client does not need to add the these triplets for relations defined in version 1 of NML
, but it MUST include them for other relations if they are used in the description. Eg. if it is using a relation
defined in the experimental extension schema.
Example 1: the following two syntaxes are equivalent.
RDF:
@prefix nml: <http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/10/base#> .
nml:hasInboundPort a nml:Relation .
urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mynode a nml:Node .
urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mynode nml:hasInboundPort urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:myport .
urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:myport a nml:Port .
XML:
<nml:Node id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mynode">
<nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/10/base#hasInboundPort">
<nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:myport" />
</nml:Relation>
</nml:Node>
Example 2: the following two syntaxes are equivalent (note the missing "nml:hasInboundPort a nml:Relation ." line)
RDF:
@prefix nml: <http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/10/base#> .
urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mynode a nml:Node .
urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mynode nml:hasInboundPort urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:myport .
urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:myport a nml:Port .
XML:
<nml:Node id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:mynode">
<nml:hasInboundPort">
<nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:myport" />
</nml:hasInboundPort>
</nml:Node>
|
|
Freek Dijkstra: 08/08/2012 10:27 AM EDT
|
|
Action: |
Update
Priority changed from 3 to 2
|
|
Freek Dijkstra: 08/08/2012 7:10 AM EDT
|
|
Comment: |
I propose the following solution:
* A NML version x compliant renderer MUST use the second NML Relation syntax for all relations defined in NML version x. (Thus the parser MUST have a
list of known NML Relations)
* A RDF description MAY contain an explicit line to signify that something is a NML relation. Either:
nmlrel:hasInboundPort rdfs:subPropertyOf nml:Relation
* A RDF parser/XML renderer which detects the above line SHOULD use the second NML Relation syntax for this relation.
* In all other cases, the XML renderer MUST use the first relation syntax (thus not use <nml:Relation>)
A question for the RDF folks. What is better:
nmlrel:hasInboundPort rdfs:subPropertyOf nml:Relation
or
nmlrel:hasInboundPort a nml:Relation
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
|