[Interop-dev] Network Device JSON Schema

Nemesis (spam-protected)
Sun Oct 26 19:22:02 CET 2014

Hey Jernej,

On 10/26/2014 11:00 AM, Jernej Kos wrote:
> Well, for our needs as written above, the minimal requirement is
> modularity and extensibility. This is why a monolithic schema is not
> good for us.
> If this "small schema" would already be modular, then we have no problem
> with starting small.

I'm here with Andi and we interpreted that for modular you mean to
describe each object separately and then be able to use it in a flexible

Is our interpretation correct?

When we talk about software, is pretty clear to me what a module is. If
we talk about a JSON schema, I have a hard time understanding what you
mean for a module.

I'd prefer to talk about objects: a network device, a link, monitoring
data, a geographical object.

For geographical objects the solution is already there, we don't need to
invent a new thing: GeoJSON is widely adopted and it works pretty well.

But for other networking things we don't have a common structure yet
unfortunately, if we could get it we might speed up the development and
adoption of many interesting and useful tools.

So could you clarify what you intend with module and how you'd prefer to
deal with it?


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.funkfeuer.at/pipermail/interop-dev/attachments/20141026/7bb76130/attachment.sig>

More information about the Interop-dev mailing list