W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > October to December 2009

[Bug 5164] validation vs assessment

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:09:53 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1N3ZRZ-0004JX-8E@wiggum.w3.org>

C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
           Keywords|needsPublication            |needsReview

--- Comment #10 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>  2009-10-29 18:09:52 ---
A wording proposal intended to resolve bug 5164 and bug 6015 is now on the
server at

  (member-only link)

Its salient features are:

1 Drops the claim that the spec uses 'valid' only to refer to local validity;
this is just not true.

2 Adds a definition of validation that makes clearer the intimate relation
between 'validation' and 'assessment'.

3 Points out that in all cases, validation and assessment overlap somewhat
operationally, and in many cases the two terms are extensionally equivalent. 
Says that when we wish to emphasize the calculation of the [validity] property,
we use v-words, and when we wish to emphasize the rich fullness of the PSVI, we
use a-words.  And when no particular emphasis is intended one way or the other,
the choice is arbitrary and often based on historical accident.  (E.g. the
v-word not an a-word in "PSVI".)

4 Changes a few uses of 'validation' to 'assessment' to help make 3 true.

5 Changes all the cases where the spec currently says "X must be valid against
Y, as defined in Rhubarb Locally Valid (section 89.23.2)" to say that X must be
*locally* valid, since local validity is what the rule referred to actually
defines.  These cases (ten or twenty of them) are the cases where the current
text actually does use 'valid' to refer to local validity.

6 Provide a definition of 'valid document' (OR: of root-valid document,
deep-valid document, and uniformly valid document) for the convenience of
working groups who use XSD to define XML vocabularies and want to say "to
conform to our spec, your document must be (root|deep|uniformly)? valid against
our schema", instead of having to specify the initial conditions for validation
and the required results of validation using terminology they often feel
uncomfortable with.

In addition, some editorial changes were made. 

One aspect of the proposal that will need discussion is the choice between a
single definition of 'valid document' and a set of several definitions which
capture different conditions (root element has [validity] = valid, vs. root
element has [validity] = valid and no node in the document has [validity] =
invalid, vs. every node in the document has [validity]=valid).  And if the
latter, the choice of terms must also be considered. 

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, 29 October 2009 18:09:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:10 UTC