All, this is a request to transition two documents, SML and SML-IF, from Candidate Recommendation to Proposed Recommendation status.
> Document Title and PR URIs
††††††††††††††† (1) Service Modeling Language, Version 1.1 [smluri]
††††††††††††††† (2) Service Modeling Language Interchange Format Version 1.1 [smlifuri]
> Estimated publication date: 12 February 2009
> The SML Working Group resolved to request this transition on [PRReq]
> Changes since the previous version: none believed to be substantive
††††††††††††††† The CR draft contained zero features at risk, and no features have been removed.
††††††††††††††† 5680 Revise example for localization and variable substitution
6237 Clarify content of documentURI is a relative reference
6245 Add ITS example to localization section
††††††††††††††† 6321 Clarify behavior when zero schema documents are bound
††††††††††††††† 6328 Misprint in example
††††††††††††††† 6443 Revise example German error message text
††††††††††††††† Full differences of PR versus CR draft: [diffsml] [diffsmlif]
> Evidence that the document satisfies group's requirements
††††††††††††††† The requirements listed in the scope section of the SML WG [charter] have all been met.
> Evidence that dependencies with other groups met
The SML WG charter requires the WG to coordinate its efforts with the XML Schema WG and the XML Query WG. Both Working Groups submitted comments on the first LC specifications, and all were resolved to the satisfaction of the submitters as documented in the Bugzilla history.†† The SML Working Group asked both Working Groups to review the 2nd LC drafts, and no new comments were submitted during the 2nd LC or CR review periods.† Please see the attached HTML file for a list of bugs opened by each group.† In addition, the SML WG solicited comments from the TAG on its first Last Call drafts at the suggestion of Noah Mendelsohn [TAGEmail].
> All normative references in both specs to W3C specifications are to Recommendations, with the exception of a single reference from SML-IF to SML.
> Evidence that the document has received wide review
††††††††††††††† Bugs submitted by both XML Schema and XML Query Working Groups
††††††††††††††† The following LC2 reviews, from outside the SML Working Group membership: [SunReview] [EMCReview]
††††††††††††††† Extensive review and bugs from Henry Thompson.
††††††††††††††† Comment made from ITS Interest Group, resulting in a new example.
> Evidence that issues have been formally addressed
††††††††††††††† Bugzilla is used to track the status of each issue.†
††††††††††††††† The only new issue raised from outside the working group since CR is bug  from the ITS Interest Group.
††††††††††††††† It was resolved to the satisfaction of the submitter.
††††††††††††††† There are no formal objections against the two specifications.
††††††††††††††† The WG was unable to reach consensus with the submitter on a small number of issues, but the reviewer chose not to pursue an appeal.† All issues raised since CR were resolved to the submitterís satisfaction.
††††††††††††††† All other issues have been resolved to the submitter's satisfaction.
††††††††††††††† Lists of each subset of issues can be found in the attached HTML file.
> Implementation information
Two implementations have submitted results.† No others are expected.
Two implementations of each required feature plus at least one implementation of each optional feature whose behavior is prescribed by these documents were required in order to exit CR.† The two implementations submitting results satisfy the exit criteria [feature-implementation-report].
Both implementations demonstrate the expected results on 144 of 144 tests [implementation-test-results].
> Patent disclosures
No disclosures have been made impacting the specification.
The WG is using IPP.
> Document Abstract: SML
This specification defines the Service Modeling Language, Version 1.1 (SML) used to model complex services and systems, including their structure, constraints, policies, and best practices. SML uses XML Schema and Schematron.
> Document Abstract: SML-IF
This specification defines the interchange format for Service Modeling Language, Version 1.1 (SML) models. This format identifies the model being interchanged, distinguishes between model definition documents and model instance documents, and defines the binding of rule documents with other documents in the interchange model.
> Document Status: both SML and SML-IF
This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/.
The W3C Membership and other interested parties are invited to review the
document and send comments through 12 March 2009. Please submit comments using
the procedure described on the
Working Groupís home page. In summary, the Working Group solicits comments
in Bugzilla from those who have access, and on the Working Groupís public mailing list (public archive) from
others. Advisory Committee Representatives should consult their WBS questionnaires.
that substantive technical comments were expected during the Last Call review
period that ended 3 October 2008. Please see the Working Group's implementation
This document has been developed by the Service Modeling Language (SML) Working Group, which is a part of the Extensible Markup Language (XML) Activity. A complete list of changes to this document is available. None of the changes affect the conformance criteria.
Publication as a Proposed Recommendation does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.
This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.
> URIs referenced above