<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>semantic-toolchain on jq1.io</title>
    <link>https://jq1.io/tags/semantic-toolchain/</link>
    <description>Recent content in semantic-toolchain on jq1.io</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2026 14:09:21 -0600</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://jq1.io/tags/semantic-toolchain/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Topology Compiler: Semantic Toolchain</title>
      <link>https://jq1.io/posts/topology_compiler_semantic_toolchain/</link>
      <pubDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2026 14:09:21 -0600</pubDate>
      <guid>https://jq1.io/posts/topology_compiler_semantic_toolchain/</guid>
      <description>Previously, the routing policy language gave cloud network engineers a way to express topology intent through four algebraic primitives. Declare deny &amp;gt; allow &amp;gt; segments &amp;gt; default, run terraform plan, and the compiler emits the correct route set. The algebra and its mental model should simplify cloud network topology. And it does.
But correctness by construction answers &amp;ldquo;is this valid?&amp;rdquo; It doesn&amp;rsquo;t answer &amp;ldquo;is this what I meant?&amp;rdquo; A policy can be structurally correct and semantically wrong.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
