RE: Perspective: XML's ticking time bomb

["Faye Ly" <faye@pedestalnetworks.com>]

Exactly the point!  I actually see "<Interface> ON </Interface>" and
"<Interface> UP </Interface>" as a potential problem. For the network
management system that has to manage both devices, it has to know ON=UP
to turn some LED green?  It is actually worse than the ifOperStatus
where every NMS out there knows how to handle? 

-faye

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 11:53 AM
To: david.durham@intel.com
Cc: xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Perspective: XML's ticking time bomb


>>>>> Durham, David writes:

Dave> So your schema can define "<IntFace> UP </IntFace>" and mine can
Dave> define "<Interface> ON </Interface>" and XSLT can be used to
Dave> translate between these. Or, better yet, when a standard is
Dave> completed, vendors can easily provide translations from it to
Dave> their existing models.

I think this example misses the point. It assumes that both boxes have
the same understanding of the concept of an interface. And yes, as
long as there is agreement on the underlying model, conversions of the
syntax are doable.

However, without an aggreed underlying conceptual model, conversions
will be hard and painful and XML won't be a good enough pain killer.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder
<http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>

--
to unsubscribe send a message to xmlconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/xmlconf/>


--
to unsubscribe send a message to xmlconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/xmlconf/>