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

RE: 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: Smith, Virginia (HP Software) <virginia.smith@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 17:22:25 +0000
To: "Wilson, Kirk D" <Kirk.Wilson@ca.com>, "public-sml@w3.org" <public-sml@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F7FBDC46204DEE4095620BAB4E964189096C2A98@G3W0634.americas.hpqcorp.net>

Yes, John's email points out how interoperability would be achieved by using the URI reference scheme in the IF document - even if the original model did not use the uri scheme. I think his point was that the SML-IF producer is, therefore, not being asked to "do the impossible". I think John's comments are in line with the new section 5.3 requiring the use of uri scheme in references when creating an IF document.

John also pointed out that any 2 vendors can agree to use their own scheme when exchanging models and therefore would actually be considered "interoperable" (if not SML-IF compliant).

What would you add to that section? I'm not sure we should get into a general discussion of interoperability other than specifying a conformant way to achieve this.

--
ginny

-----Original Message-----
From: Wilson, Kirk D [mailto:Kirk.Wilson@ca.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 8:30 AM
To: Smith, Virginia (HP Software); public-sml@w3.org
Subject: RE: 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

Actually, Ginny, given John's last email on Issue 4675
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Dec/0059.html)
I'm now considering whether or not the whole notion of interoperability might be broader than the topic discussed in the new 5.3.  It seems to me that John is saying that interoperability for SML-IF interchange can be achieved trivially, assuming a fully by-value-embedded SML-IF document within "very tight bounds" (even when the SML model contains non-sml.uri reference schemes)--conditions that are not covered in 5.3.
Outside of these conditions, we have no definition of interoperability, since the URI RFC doesn't define such a notion.  On the other hand, interoperability ultimately depends on the set of reference schemes the consumers and producers mutually support.

(When does one's head stop spinning from this discussion?)

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 Smith, Virginia (HP Software)
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 11:12 AM
To: Wilson, Kirk D; public-sml@w3.org
Subject: RE: 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


Kirk,

Yes, the current 5.3 would become 5.4.  We do overload the use of 'references' in the IF spec. There is an open bug suggesting that we adjust some of these terms to avoid confusion (post LC).

I like the idea of changing the title to "interoperability". I'll make that change assuming we don't get any responses disagreeing with this.

--
ginny


-----Original Message-----
From: Wilson, Kirk D [mailto:Kirk.Wilson@ca.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:33 AM
To: Smith, Virginia (HP Software); public-sml@w3.org
Subject: RE: 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

Ginny, thank you for the detailed explanation.  It answered all my questions.  I would still suggest changing the title of 5.3 to "Interoperability" to avoid having too many sections that refer to "references" and "interoperability" seems to be a more precise topic of what is discussed in the section.

I assume that you intend that the current 5.3 section becomes 5.4.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, Virginia (HP Software) [mailto:virginia.smith@hp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 8:24 PM
To: Wilson, Kirk D; public-sml@w3.org
Subject: RE: 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

Kirk,

Yes, this means that a conformant SML-IF document MUST contain an SML URI reference for every non-null reference. I thought it read better to state the requirement in a normative section (as are all other
requirements) rather than only in the conformance section. And, yes that is what the proposal intends - to remove 2 levels of conformance in favor of only one - the one which provides "full interoperability" as you mention. I believe that is the goal of SML-IF.

As far as proprietary schemas goes, a vendor can always claim to be SML-complaint with such a scheme since SML allows this. The vendor would expect that its SML-IF document, using a proprietary scheme, is not generally interoperable so I don't think it should be 'blessed' by the SML-IF spec. In fact, I believe that 2 levels of compliance opens up the gate for 2 SML stacks - both conformant but not interoperable.

Good point about the producer. I'll have to think about that wording.

--
ginny

-----Original Message-----
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Wilson, Kirk D
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 4:41 PM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: 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


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 17:23:51 UTC

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