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

RE: [Bug 5496] Definition of Interchange Set

From: Smith, Virginia (HP Software) <virginia.smith@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:22:03 +0000
To: "public-sml@w3.org" <public-sml@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F7FBDC46204DEE4095620BAB4E9641890F427854@G3W0634.americas.hpqcorp.net>


I don't see that the 'rest of the text' is talking about anything other than the model being interchanged. In my view, any existing 'original' model is not relevant once the interchange set has been packaged in the IF document. Can you provide an example in the text?


-----Original Message-----
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:24 AM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: [Bug 5496] Definition of Interchange Set


------- Comment #4 from kirk.wilson@ca.com  2008-02-20 19:23 -------
I'm not sure whether adding "conforming SML model" helps the issue I'm raising.
 I know we gave up the notion of "complete model"; it's impossible to achieve
in reality.  But let's assume we have an SML model; it consists of a set of
documents.  The interchange set may consist of that entire set or a "portion"
(subset) of it.  In either case the interchange set will represent an SML
model, but if the interchange set is a subset of the "original" model, then the
SML model represented by the interchange set will (in most likelihood) be a
different model.  The issue I have tried to raise here is that the definition
of interchange set, in saying simply that interchange set "constitutes" the SML
model being interchanged does not make it obvious to the reader that we may NOT
be talking about the same SML model as the rest of text (namely, the one of
which a portion of it may be interchanged).
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2008 20:21:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:56:09 UTC