- From: Wilson, Kirk D <Kirk.Wilson@ca.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 07:33:07 -0500
- To: "Smith, Virginia (HP Software)" <virginia.smith@hp.com>, <public-sml@w3.org>
Ginny, thank you for the detailed explanation. It answered all my questions. I would still suggest changing the title of 5.3 to "Interoperability" to avoid having too many sections that refer to "references" and "interoperability" seems to be a more precise topic of what is discussed in the section. I assume that you intend that the current 5.3 section becomes 5.4. Kirk Wilson, Ph.D. Research Staff Member CA Labs 603 823-7146 -----Original Message----- From: Smith, Virginia (HP Software) [mailto:virginia.smith@hp.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 8:24 PM To: Wilson, Kirk D; public-sml@w3.org Subject: RE: RE: [Bug 4675] add text in section 5.3.3 to require that consumers and producers are required to implement at a minimum the uri scheme Kirk, Yes, this means that a conformant SML-IF document MUST contain an SML URI reference for every non-null reference. I thought it read better to state the requirement in a normative section (as are all other requirements) rather than only in the conformance section. And, yes that is what the proposal intends - to remove 2 levels of conformance in favor of only one - the one which provides "full interoperability" as you mention. I believe that is the goal of SML-IF. As far as proprietary schemas goes, a vendor can always claim to be SML-complaint with such a scheme since SML allows this. The vendor would expect that its SML-IF document, using a proprietary scheme, is not generally interoperable so I don't think it should be 'blessed' by the SML-IF spec. In fact, I believe that 2 levels of compliance opens up the gate for 2 SML stacks - both conformant but not interoperable. Good point about the producer. I'll have to think about that wording. -- ginny -----Original Message----- From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Wilson, Kirk D Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 4:41 PM To: public-sml@w3.org Subject: RE: [Bug 4675] add text in section 5.3.3 to require that consumers and producers are required to implement at a minimum the uri scheme Before I make a comment in Bugzilla, I would like to ask several questions. I really like the 5.1 conformance criteria section. However, doesn't the fact that section 5.3 states that the interchange set "MUST" contain an SML URI scheme in each non-null SML reference and the conformance criteria of SML-IF documents states that a conformant document MUST adhere to stipulations in normative sections (I assume 5.3 is classified as a "normative section") mean that a conformant SML-IF document MUST contain an SML URI reference for every non-null SML reference? If so, haven't we just subtly re-introduced Level 2 conformance as the criterion of conformance? Rather than directly stating it, we imply it (which makes it a little more difficult to ferret out of the text). Is this what is intended?? If so, don't we reintroduce the debate we had originally at the F2F for introducing the two "levels"--namely (as I recall), vendors who wish to develop their own schemes don't want to be declared non-conformant? Maybe instead "levels" of conformance, perhaps defining document conformance as in 5.1 and allowing an explicit concept of "interoperability" will resolve the problem. Section 5.3 becomes a section on "Interoperability Criterion" (rather than "SML References"--we seem to have a lot of "SML Reference sections). The SML URI scheme is required for each SML reference to achieve full interoperability. SML-IF documents can be conformant to the spec (in terms of schema structure and requirements) but not fully interoperable (e.g., if they contain an instance of the EPR scheme). Also, a question on the definition of conforming SML-IF Producer: must have a conforming SML-IF Producer be able to literally take *any arbitrary* SML model and generate a conforming SML-IF document--even if the SML model contains non-interoperable reference schemes??? That seems to be calling on the SML-IF Producer to do the impossible. Kirk Wilson, Ph.D. Research Staff Member CA Labs 603 823-7146 -----Original Message----- From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 4:27 PM To: public-sml@w3.org Subject: [Bug 4675] add text in section 5.3.3 to require that consumers and producers are required to implement at a minimum the uri scheme http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4675 ------- Comment #18 from virginia.smith@hp.com 2007-12-05 21:27 ------- I don't think we should have 2 levels of compliance for SML-IF documents. This does not help with regard to interoperability which is SML-IF's primary goal. Rather, this dilutes the interoperability that SML-IF brings to the table. I propose the following 2 changes: ================= 5.1 Conformance Criteria A conforming SML-IF Document MUST adhere to this specification as described in the normative sections. A conforming SML-IF Producer MUST be able to generate a conforming SML-IF Document from an SML model. A conforming SML-IF Consumer MUST process a conforming SML-IF Document using, in whole or part, semantics defined by this specification. It is OPTIONAL that a conforming SML-IF Consumer process all elements defined in this specification, but any element that is processed MUST be processed in a manner that is consistent with the semantics defined here. ================ Add new section - insert after section 5.2 5.3 SML References An SML reference can contain multiple representations using different reference schemes. SML-IF requires that all non-null SML references in the interchange set MUST contain an SML URI scheme [SML 1.1] representation. Any SML reference MAY also include other scheme representations as well.
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2007 12:33:27 UTC