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

RE: [Bug 4675] add text in section 5.3.3 to require that consumers and producers are required to implement at a minimum the uri scheme

From: Wilson, Kirk D <Kirk.Wilson@ca.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:41:08 -0500
Message-ID: <F9576E62032243419E097FED5F0E75F303276598@USILMS12.ca.com>
To: <public-sml@w3.org>

Before I make a comment in Bugzilla, I would like to ask several
questions.

I really like the 5.1 conformance criteria section.  However, doesn't
the fact that section 5.3 states that the interchange set "MUST" contain
an SML URI scheme in each non-null SML reference and the conformance
criteria of SML-IF documents states that a conformant document MUST
adhere to stipulations in normative sections (I assume 5.3 is classified
as a "normative section") mean that a conformant SML-IF document MUST
contain an SML URI reference for every non-null SML reference?

If so, haven't we just subtly re-introduced Level 2 conformance as the
criterion of conformance?  Rather than directly stating it, we imply it
(which makes it a little more difficult to ferret out of the text).  Is
this what is intended??  If so, don't we reintroduce the debate we had
originally at the F2F for introducing the two "levels"--namely (as I
recall), vendors who wish to develop their own schemes don't want to be
declared non-conformant?

Maybe instead "levels" of conformance, perhaps defining document
conformance as in 5.1 and allowing an explicit concept of
"interoperability" will resolve the problem.  Section 5.3 becomes a
section on "Interoperability Criterion" (rather than "SML
References"--we seem to have a lot of "SML Reference sections).  The SML
URI scheme is required for each SML reference to achieve full
interoperability.  SML-IF documents can be conformant to the spec (in
terms of schema structure and requirements) but not fully interoperable
(e.g., if they contain an instance of the EPR scheme).

Also, a question on the definition of conforming SML-IF Producer: must
have a conforming SML-IF Producer be able to literally take *any
arbitrary* SML model and generate a conforming SML-IF document--even if
the SML model contains non-interoperable reference schemes???  That
seems to be calling on the SML-IF Producer to do the impossible.

Kirk Wilson, Ph.D.
Research Staff Member
CA Labs
603 823-7146
 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 4:27 PM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: [Bug 4675] add text in section 5.3.3 to require that consumers
and producers are required to implement at a minimum the uri scheme


http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4675





------- Comment #18 from virginia.smith@hp.com  2007-12-05 21:27 -------
I don't think we should have 2 levels of compliance for SML-IF
documents. This
does not help with regard to interoperability which is SML-IF's primary
goal.
Rather, this dilutes the interoperability that SML-IF brings to the
table.

I propose the following 2 changes:

=================
5.1 Conformance Criteria

A conforming SML-IF Document MUST adhere to this specification as
described in
the normative sections. 

A conforming SML-IF Producer MUST be able to generate a conforming
SML-IF
Document from an SML model.

A conforming SML-IF Consumer MUST process a conforming SML-IF Document
using,
in whole or part, semantics defined by this specification. It is
OPTIONAL that
a conforming SML-IF Consumer process all elements defined in this
specification, but any element that is processed MUST be processed in a
manner
that is consistent with the semantics defined here. 



================ 
Add new section - insert after section 5.2

5.3 SML References

An SML reference can contain multiple representations using different
reference
schemes. SML-IF requires that all non-null SML references in the
interchange
set MUST contain an SML URI scheme [SML 1.1] representation. Any SML
reference
MAY also include other scheme representations as well.
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2007 00:41:17 UTC

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