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

[Bug 5740] New: Inconsistent requirements for using PSVI after 5541 adopted

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:03:44 +0000
To: public-sml@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-5740-1927@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5740

           Summary: Inconsistent requirements for using PSVI after 5541
                    adopted
           Product: SML
           Version: LC
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows XP
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Core
        AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org
        ReportedBy: johnarwe@us.ibm.com
         QAContact: public-sml@w3.org


We agreed to open this bug as part of the 6/12 working group call.

As a result of http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5541 , there is an
inconsistency in the spec between the (new with 5541) conformance requirement
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5541#c14 proposal [2] and
existing text in section 4.1.1, which currently reads:

http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2007/xml/sml/build/sml.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#URI_Reference_Scheme

> It is implementation-defined whether to use the XML Infoset [XML Information 
> Set] or the Post Schema Validation Infoset (PSVI) [XML Schema Structures] for 
> SML reference identification. Using the XML Infoset enables SML reference 
> identification without relying on XML Schema validation. Using the PSVI makes
> it possible to identify SML references using schema defaulted sml:ref
> attributes.

There was a suggestion on the call to remove the entire paragraph to fix this. 
While the last 2 sentence above were substantially preserved (
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5541#c14 proposal [1]), the
proposed removal of the first sentence concerned several members.

The concern was based on their reading of that the existing text applies to two
classes of SML implementations, those that validate models (SML validators) and
those that do not (model processors, assuming the proposal in
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5715#c2 is accepted, see
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=554 ); their reading of the
solution adopted by 5541, if the excerpted paragraph above was also removed, is
that the requirement of the first sentence would no longer apply to model
processors (it would clearly still apply to SML validators by virtue of 5541
C14 proposal [2]).

Some members preferred to continue to impose a requirement on model processors
that are not also SML validators to document their choice of infoset when
recognizing SML references.  They acknowledged that doing so is insufficient to
guarantee interoperability of systems built using model processors in general,
however they perceived value in giving the constructors of those systems
another tool (in this case, the documentation of infoset that "impl-defined"
imposes) useful in successfully building working systems out of
non-SML-validating model processors.  Others were unclear that this had
sufficient value to include in the spec, given all the other ways in which the
spec allows non-SML-validating model processors can be non-interoperable.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2008 21:04:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 12 June 2008 21:04:21 GMT