perfsonar development work

[Jason Zurawski <>]

Mark;

> > So my question is why does this schema not use the base schema (where 
> > I pulled my example from)?  Making changes in multiple locations like 
> > this is not desirable because of situations (such as this) where what 
> > is required works fine in one file, but not in another.  I will make 
> > the change to this file, but I would highly recommend this other 
> > schema be built using techniques to extend the current work.
> Jason, your point is fully clear and understandable, but where is in 
> XML_Schema_v03_final.rnc some reference to the base schema ?
> If I recall this right, building of stand-alone schema for E2Emon was 
> caused by the not-really-network-related structure of required 
> metadata and data.

Most (if not all) of your schema is mirrored in the other schema files.  
There are elements that are borrowed from nmbase, and the various 
topology and event schemas.  Just by looking I dont see anything that 
the e2emon schema requires that is not covered somewhere in the other 
files. 

I do not recall why it was decided that a 'stand alone' schema is 
needed, but in my opinion it is not a good idea.  Extensibility is far 
more desirable than trying to isolate something like e2emon from changes 
to the schema files that may be required in other services.  I would 
argue that there have not been monumental changes to these files in a 
long time; keeping them separate doesn't really make much sense.

-jason