W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sml@w3.org > April 2008

[Bug 5653] Final vocabulary clean-up

From: <bugzilla@farnsworth.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:52:12 +0000
To: public-sml@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1JoJqu-0004QA-7a@farnsworth.w3.org>


           Summary: Final vocabulary clean-up
           Product: SML
           Version: LC
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows XP
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Core+Interchange Format
        AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org
        ReportedBy: kirk.wilson@ca.com
         QAContact: public-sml@w3.org

The documents use three terms: "validator", "consumer" and "processor" and the
justification for using one term rather than another is not always clear to the

SML: principal term is "validator": a validator performs SML model validation.
However, section 4.1.3 Note and Appendix F refer to "consumers".  And, 4.2.5
and refer explicitly or implicitly to "model processors".  (Also
section 8 refers to "schema-aware processor"--I'm not sure whether that is
referring to an XML Schema processor or a SML model validator that must be
schema-aware or to a general SML processor that is aware of the PSVI.) 
Intuitively, it would seem that "consumer"/"processor" connotes doing something
more with the SML model then simply validating it, like actualizing it in an IT
environment.   We should either make this additional connotation for
"consumer"/"processor" explicit esp. to justify the use of "consumer" in the
SML-IF spec.

SML-IF: For some reason the SML-IF spec switches to "SML-IF Consumer" even
through it seems that the SML-IF Consumer performs (only - ??) interchange
model validation.  First point: the fact that "SML-IF Consumers" perform
interchange model validation is not explicitly stated until section 5.1.  This
association needs to be made explicit earlier in the text.  Second point: some
indication/justification should be given as to why this validator is a
"consumer".  Is it a "consumer" because interchange model validation consists
of additional processing above SML model validation?  If so we, then the
vocabulary developed in SML does not support the vocabulary in SML-IF. 

SML-IF also has some minor, editorial issues:

1. There is a classic case of a dangling participle in section 4.4: "When
performing interchange model validation..., association between XML Schema
definition documents...."  The associations do not perform interchange model
2.  Section 4.4 item #1 uses "processor" (only time this word is used in
SML-IF); clearly, this should be changed to "consumer" if that is our choosen
term for this spec.
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 14:52:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:56:11 UTC