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: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 13:06:37 -0500
To: public-sml@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF549D217F.88455684-ON852573A9.0061F5E6-852573A9.0063AE0B@us.ibm.com>
> 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).

I am starting to feel like words are being put in my mouth.  They taste 

According to the current spec, the case above is conforming (an example of 
a conforming document).  Any other terms we use I do not believe we have 
agreed-to definitions for.  I suggested a possible new term, "contextually 
interoperable" I think, that might address the case above.

I continue to believe people are getting hung up on the "...conforming" 
label more than is useful.  Hence the change of the label's value.  If 
it's scope of interop we are trying to label, I'm not sure why we would 
use a totally different word (conforming) in the label.

What is the value in saying that a given SMLIF document, because of its 
use of reference schemes, is not conforming?  Who benefits?

Best Regards, John

Street address: 2455 South Road, P328 Poughkeepsie, NY USA 12601
Voice: 1+845-435-9470      Fax: 1+845-432-9787
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2007 18:07:04 UTC

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