On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 07:10:16PM -0400, Susan Hares wrote: > The assumption: > > I am assuming that the information models are not a waste of time. Jeff > Haas' comment was isn't having information models and data models a > duplication of effort. > > First of all, RBNF and ABNF seem to be causing redundant issues in the > draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-02 draft. > > The ABNF the delightful work in > <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability/> > draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability-01 really difficult to follow. > > My assumption had been the following train would occur: > > UML graphic (readable) > || > VV (someday via tool) > UML text (readable) > || (via tools - I've already found some) > || > VV > > Yang/Forces Data Model (Yang readable/Forces:Readable)
FWIW, UML can do much of this but even some of the best authors on it note that it can be a bit more art than science in some cases. Since our models to this point have been relatively simple I suspect that this train may actually work. > For validation of the code in the router > > Code > > || (tools creates) > > XML > > || (tool creates) > > Yang/Forces Data model > > || (tool creates) I suspect this is effectively where the tool chain would traditionally stop. You've de-marshalled the intermediate form into something that recognizes the structured data and can dump it directly into your code. You might have: > UML syntax UML in the middle to absorb it, but my suspicion is that a lot of existing tools would prefer to either work on XML documents due to the related tools like XPath. > So.. font of wisdom from on high, can you let me know if I have > misunderstood the point for information models and data models. Just to clarify my own point for the list, my concern was mostly that a sufficiently useful data modeling language obviates much of what the info model gives us: Structure of the information and general typing. What something like UML gives us that isn't necessarily a property of those data modeling languages is the inter-relationship of objects. UML is pretty good at that. My only concern about graphical UML, having done a few pretty pictures for similar info systems is that they get *big*, and splitting those across the IETF-publishable formats may be messy. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
