perfsonar development work

[Roman Lapacz <>]

Jason Zurawski wrote:
> Roman;
>
> > So to summarize our discussion I propose this message example (see 
> > attachment).
> >
> > Jason, do you think *child* methods in 
> > org.ggf.ns.nmwg.base.v2_0.Parameter class are enough for extended 
> > Parameter element. Or you will want to update it?
>
> The child handling in the parameter elements should be fine for this 
> purpose, we currently don't verify types or anything specific.

OK

> > If you are fine with transformation namespace, will you add it to the 
> > ggf implementation?
> I think before we add this in we should explore a little further what 
> goes into a transformation, and what the final result would look like 
> (a response for this request).

Let's see what Jeff or others will say.

> Do we want to be strict in which 'typeType' values to accept?

What do you mean here?

> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
> >
> > <nmwg:message id="msg1"
> >             type="SetupDataRequest"
> >             
> > xmlns:netutil="http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/characteristic/utilization/2.0/";
> >             xmlns:nmwg="http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/base/2.0/";
> >             xmlns:nmwgt="http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/topology/2.0/";
> >             xmlns:select="http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/ops/select/2.0/";
> >             
> > xmlns:transformation="http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/ops/transformation/2.0/";>
> >
> >   <nmwg:metadata id="meta1">
> >     <netutil:subject id="iusub1">
> >       <nmwgt:interface>
> >         <nmwgt:ifAddress type="ipv4">100.1.2.3</nmwgt:ifAddress>
> >         <nmwgt:direction>in</nmwgt:direction>
> >       </nmwgt:interface>
> >     </netutil:subject>
> >     
> > <nmwg:eventType>http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/characteristic/utilization/2.0</nmwg:eventType> 
> >
> >   </nmwg:metadata>
> >
> >   <nmwg:metadata id="meta2select">
> >     <select:subject id="iusub2" metadataIdRef="meta1"/>
> >     <select:parameters id="param1">
> >       <nmwg:parameter name="startTime">
> >         <nmtm:time type="UNIX" value="1121472000"/>
> >       </nmwg:parameter>
> >       <nmwg:parameter name="endTime">
> >         <nmtm:time type="UNIX" value="1121904000"/>
> >       </nmwg:parameter>
> >       <nmwg:parameter 
> > name="consolidationFunction">AVERAGE</nmwg:parameter>
> >       <nmwg:parameter name="resolution">60</nmwg:parameter>
> >     </select:parameters>
> >     
> > <nmwg:eventType>http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/ops/select/2.0</nmwg:eventType>
> >   </nmwg:metadata>
> >
> >   <nmwg:metadata id="meta3transformation">
> >     <transformation:subject id="iusub3" metadataIdRef="meta2select"/>
> >     <transformation:parameters id="param1">
> >       <nmwg:parameter name="timeType">ISO</nmwg:parameter>
> >     </transformation:parameters>
> >   
> > <nmwg:eventType>http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/ops/transformation/2.0/time</nmwg:eventType> 
> >
> >   </nmwg:metadata>
> >
> >   <nmwg:data id="data1" metadataIdRef="meta3transformation" />
> >
> > </nmwg:message>
> >   
>
> I am also unsure about the use of the 'timeType' parameter here.  To 
> be consistent we may want to use another 'time' object, but I am open 
> to debate on that.
I was thinking about this. This parameter is more to specify the type of 
transformation, not a specific data or series of data. But right, I'm 
insure here as well.

What about two other metadata blocks (meta1, meta2select). Are they fine 
for you. I could start work at least on this part and assume that the 
output format is unix by default.

Roman