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

RE: RE: [w3c sml] SML-IF conformance

From: Wilson, Kirk D <Kirk.Wilson@ca.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 07:57:07 -0500
Message-ID: <F9576E62032243419E097FED5F0E75F3032765C5@USILMS12.ca.com>
To: "Smith, Virginia (HP Software)" <virginia.smith@hp.com>, <public-sml@w3.org>


The problem I see with the Full/Minimal Conformance "levels" is that
those terms seem to imply endpoints of a scale (and, indeed,
interoperability does seem to exist on a scale from guaranteed through
"operational" to minimal or none), but the Conformance Criteria section
doesn't provide any means by which we talk about degrees on the scale.
(If you have "full" and "minimal" conformance, why not "partial"
conformance, but what does it mean to talk about something that is
*partially* conforming?) One has to read the non-normative section on
interoperability to begin understanding how one might talk about the

Which raises another question: Does Full Conformance require embedding
of all documents and schemaComplete-ness?  As the definition is
currently stated, I don't believe so.  For example, the normative rule
regarding non-embedded of documents is simply that documents that are
not embedded MUST include the location element which MUST have the
appropriate content.  (Yes, what happened to the discussion of
schemaComplete in the spec?  It seems to have disappeared.) But we know
that not embedding documents can adversely affect interoperability.

It seems to me that we are saying conformance to the spec yields
interoperability (of course) but, on the other hand, we have introduced
an extension mechanism for reference schemes--and extensions always
cause headaches for interoperability--and options (non-embedding of
documents and schema incompleteness) that *do not violate the Schema*
but adversely affect interoperability.  The current definition of Full
Conformance addresses only the reference scheme extension mechanism; I
believe it also needs to address the other two
interoperability-affecting factors that John identified if it is going
to achieve the goal of guaranteed interoperability.

Finally, it seems to me that having separate <referenceScheme> elements
for each reference scheme that is used in a interchange set may not
answer the question of whether a SML-IF document is fully conforming.


All I know is that sml:uri is used in at least one SML reference; I
don't know if sml:uri is used in all references or just in a true subset
of the references--and the Weird scheme is used in the others.  

And, in general, isn't there a problem with this <referenceScheme> idea
in itself if the SML-IF producer doesn't understand a scheme: How is it
to know what the <referenceScheme> should be populated with?  Should the
SML document using the reference scheme somehow publish the identifier
(QName or URI) for the scheme?

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: Friday, December 07, 2007 1:13 PM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: RE: RE: [w3c sml] SML-IF conformance 

Sorry, I just realized I went too far on the conforming consumer.  Use
this doc instead.


-----Original Message-----
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Smith, Virginia (HP Software)
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 10:04 AM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: RE: [w3c sml] SML-IF conformance

A new draft based on feedback. Mostly some clarification on conforming
consumers and the list of reference schemes.


-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, Virginia (HP Software)
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 11:32 PM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: [w3c sml] SML-IF conformance

Attached is a draft of the SML-IF conformance proposal that we discussed

Received on Saturday, 8 December 2007 12:57:21 UTC

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