W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sml@w3.org > December 2007

Re: [w3c sml] section "resolving an SML reference" section missing.

From: Sandy Gao <sandygao@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 11:44:14 -0500
To: "Smith, Virginia (HP Software)" <virginia.smith@hp.com>
Cc: "public-sml@w3.org" <public-sml@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF5839FFEE.B9CDC4C5-ON852573A8.00508956-852573A8.005BFF0C@ca.ibm.com>
Thanks Ginny for performing this extensive analysis. I think Valentina and 
I reached the same conclusion when we were discussing 5291.

I'd also like to keep the current organization. "Rules" are generally 
easier to understand than "steps".

I can also see how the steps could help people, especially implementers. 
Also the steps helped us (the WG) to ensure that we got what we wanted.

Maybe a compromise could be to keep the current organization, and include 
the steps as a non-normative section? Or the other way around (rules 
non-normative; steps normative), but this could be much harder to do.

So I can see 3 options:
1 Rules only
2 Both rules and steps, with steps non-normative
3 Both rules and steps, with rules non-normative

No strong preference.

BTW, a purely editorial comment. It seems that the organization of 4.2.1 
and 4.2.2 looks a bit awkward. The current 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 overlap a 
little bit; and 4.2.1 also depends on the second half of 4.2.2. Would it 
help at all to have:

4.2.1 At most one target
4.2.2 Consistent Reference Schemes
4.2.3 Identical Targets

where 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 talk about different aspects of the "one target" 
rule; both of them need the "identity" definition for targets, which is 
defined in 4.2.3?

Sandy Gao
XML Technologies, IBM Canada
Editor, W3C XML Schema WG
Member, W3C SML WG
(1-905) 413-3255 T/L 313-3255

"Smith, Virginia (HP Software)" <virginia.smith@hp.com> 
Sent by: public-sml-request@w3.org
2007-12-05 02:33 AM

"public-sml@w3.org" <public-sml@w3.org>

[w3c sml] section "resolving an SML reference" section missing.

As promised, attached is a document that contains the missing section in 
the SML spec that I believe Kumar was referring to in our last meeting. 
The document contains the missing section and also the current text for 
comparison. The missing text lists several reference resolution and model 
validation requirements. I've indicated in the comments which of the 
current sections contain these requirements.

I prefer the current text and organization rather than the missing section 
for the following reasons:

- the missing section mixes reference resolution and model validity in 
what appears to be a series of 'steps'
- the current organization allows us to define terms and add additional 
information along with specifying each requirement.


#### RefTextComparison.doc has been removed from this note on December 05 
2007 by Sandy Gao
#### RefTextComparison.pdf has been removed from this note on December 05 
2007 by Sandy Gao
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 16:45:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:56:08 UTC