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

[Bug 5721] Statement about definitions in definition docs vs. instance docs would help

From: <bugzilla@farnsworth.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 22:30:24 +0000
CC:
To: public-sml@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1K1UA4-0006N8-CK@farnsworth.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5721

           Summary: Statement about definitions in definition docs vs.
                    instance docs would help
           Product: SML
           Version: LC
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows XP
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Core
        AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org
        ReportedBy: julia@us.ibm.com
         QAContact: public-sml@w3.org


I spent a lot of time trying to understand things like
1) Why it wasn't ridiculous to say sml:ref="true" followed by
sml:nilref="true";
2) Why it made sense to define acyclic, targetType, etc. on a type that did not
have an sml:ref attribute.

After much puzzling (and questions to John) I believe the reason is because it
can be useful to define some things in the model definition documents while
leaving some decisions to the instance document author. For example:
1) The definition document might say that a particular type is an sml reference
but the instance document author may decide to not to define it as a reference;
2) The definition document author might want to add constraints while leaving
the decision about whether to use an sml reference up to the instance document
author.

I believe it would be helpful to readers if there were a non-normatve note (or
two) that explained this.
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 22:30:58 UTC

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