IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: analysis of YANG vs. RELAX NG

Leif Johansson <leifj@it.su.se> Tue, 27 November 2007 12:45 UTC

Return-path: <discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iwzoj-0000Ba-6O; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:45:33 -0500
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Iwzoi-0000BT-Uj for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:45:32 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iwzoi-0000BC-Kf for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:45:32 -0500
Received: from smtp3.su.se ([130.237.93.228]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iwzoi-0003iS-Ba for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:45:32 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.su.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABF953C1D9; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:45:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: from smtp3.su.se ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.su.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 05837-01-7; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:45:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: from k2.mnt.se (dhcp-wavelan-vo-7.publik.su.se [193.11.30.7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp3.su.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 616903C0E6; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:45:29 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <474C116A.1080001@it.su.se>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:45:30 +0100
From: Leif Johansson <leifj@it.su.se>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
Subject: Re: analysis of YANG vs. RELAX NG
References: <20071127.130355.18118495.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20071127.130355.18118495.mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at smtp.su.se
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.083 tagged_above=-99 required=7 tests=[AWL=0.229, BAYES_00=-2.312]
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906
Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org

>
> How would this translate to RelaxNG?
>
>
>
> /martin
>
>
>   
I don't know about RelaxNG, but it is pretty close to OWL. Apart from
the C-like syntax (which might be important to some) the example
suggests a modeling language which supports classes, packages,
properties (possibly associations?) and a form of multiple inheritance.

While I am as happy as the next guy that we won't be seeing RFCs
with XMI in them anytime soon I am curious as to why something like
OWL isn't a strong candidate for something like this. Is it just "anti-XML"
or is there something more substantial to it?

I'm looking foward to the BOF.

    Cheers Leif

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email