RE: [Bug 5040] Hanlding of reference constraints on different kinds of elements

Kumar,

Your suggestion conflicts with 2.d in the same section. In fact, this
section mixes both SML reference resolution, reference validity, and
model validity. I think these need to be separated.

--
ginny 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 6:51 PM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: [Bug 5040] Hanlding of reference constraints on different kinds
of elements


http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5040


kumarp@microsoft.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
         AssignedTo|cmsmcq@w3.org               |kumarp@microsoft.com




------- Comment #9 from kumarp@microsoft.com  2007-11-09 02:51 -------
Proposal:
Based on the resolution in the previsous comment, make the following
suggested
changes:

[1]
In section "4.1.2.4 Resolving an SML reference to assess its validity",
add the following line just before bullet 2.a:

a. If the attempt to resolve fails for at least one scheme then the
model validity state is declared to be unknown.

[2]
Both '?' values in the table (in comment# 2) should be 'Satisfied'.

==========================================

Note:
The intent of the change# 1 is to ensure that we distinguish between the
2 sub-cases of 'unresolved'.

a. the default retreival action of a scheme cannot be completed due to
any runtime condition (such as network error, etc.) ==> this leads to
model validity being unknown

b. the default retreival action of a scheme successfully completes but
returns an empty nodeset ==> this is the only case of 'unresolved'.

Received on Friday, 9 November 2007 03:17:10 UTC