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

RE: [Bug 5496] Definition of Interchange Set

From: Wilson, Kirk D <Kirk.Wilson@ca.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:31:20 -0500
Message-ID: <F9576E62032243419E097FED5F0E75F30457C4C6@USILMS12.ca.com>
To: "Smith, Virginia (HP Software)" <virginia.smith@hp.com>, <public-sml@w3.org>


There are several statements that speak of a "portion" of an SML model.
For example, in section 1:

To ensure accurate and convenient interchange of the documents that make
up an SML model or a portion of an SML model,

And in section 2:

The collection of XML documents that make up a model (or model portion)
to be interchanged need to be gathered together.

I have difficulty understanding what a portion of a model would be in
terms of the model represented by the interchange set.  An interchange
set simply is an interchange set--it consists of whatever it consists
of.  "Portion", on the other hand, is a relative term--something is a
portion of something else greater than itself.  Therefore, I tend to
interpret these passages implying that there's the SML model that
someone has and they want to interchange it (and they have an option of
interchanging a portion of that model) and they are going to create the
SML-IF document to do that--and that document will represent the model
that they actually interchange.

If the text is just to talk about the model represented by the
interchange set, then I would suggest removing the language about
"portion" of an SML model.  I would be satisfied with that.  I think
that would be less confusing than the way the text is now.

I hope this helps.  If not, then let's drop the issue.  

Kirk Wilson, Ph.D.
Research Staff Member, CA Labs
603 823-7146 (preferred)
Cell:  603 991-8873

-----Original Message-----
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Smith, Virginia (HP Software)
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:22 PM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: RE: [Bug 5496] Definition of Interchange Set


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
 I know we gave up the notion of "complete model"; it's impossible to
in reality.  But let's assume we have an SML model; it consists of a set
documents.  The interchange set may consist of that entire set or a
(subset) of it.  In either case the interchange set will represent an
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
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
which a portion of it may be interchanged).
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2008 21:31:37 UTC

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