perfsonar development work

["Jeff W. Boote" <>]

ulisses wrote:
> > > > * If the above two points are done, are you sure your service is 
> > > > producing xml messages which are conforming to the agreements you might 
> > > > have had with NMWG?
> > > >   
> > >
> > > I think I don't understand what you mean with message sequences, do you 
> > > refer to xml schema?
> >
> > I mean to ask whether the requests and responses that you have discussed 
> > and agreed to use are the same as the ones your service is generating.
>
>
> nobody never told me that I had to conform to other than the *.rnc files
>
> I supossed I was the one to define the document, and that I only had to 
> conform to this .rnc files.

The rnc files can only specify correct syntax. The problems you are having are 
due to the semantics of the information.

The marshalling classes have not been written to support all of the possible 
syntax options available, only the ones that actually have meaning.

I would suggest a phone call with Martin and Jason (and anyone else interested 
in using the topology schema). I think we need to understand your use case 
better to really be able to help. I personally have not been able to figure out 
what you are trying to do yet. (Perhaps Martin and Jason already have a good idea?)

jeff