> It is only a semantic problem if you're looking for a
You miss my point, but I'm sure I spoke it poorly.
> one-size-fits-all universal taxonomy of networking. I believe in a
> system with a small set of primitives with well-defined semantics,
> which can be used to define a network model of anything from an X.25
> financial system to a Tier1 backbone provider, to a heterogeneous mesh
> network.
>
> In my use of it here, a "type", or "element type" is a grouping of
> elements that share common attributes, functions, and similar roles in
> the network hierarchy. We have "types" that include "interface",
> "card", "connection" (sub-typed by vlan, lsp, etc.), and even
> higher-level constructs of "qos policy" and "edge router".
>
> Each of these types has well-defined semantics (interfaces can be
> connected to one or more interfaces via connnections; cards can be
> interchanged in slots, etc.) that are true despite vendor or model
> differences.
That you can do this is not in question; I'm aware of the
tractability of the approach.
What is this ontology in which you define your new types within,
and how does it limit you?
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
