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

I don't see a conflict.

If

Scheme resolution error ==> model state unknown

Else

2.d (which requires successful resolution) ==> model invalid

Perhaps, it will help clarify this if we add text to the effect that "once model state is unknown, that state cannot change due to any reason".

Regarding the second point, establishing reference validity requires reference resolution. The text seems clear enough. We discussed Sandy's ref proposal for days before reaching consensus. The WG has already agreed to this text. However, if you really believe that the text must change, would you like to propose the new text?


-----Original Message-----
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Virginia (HP Software)
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 7:19 PM
To: bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org; public-sml@w3.org
Subject: 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 09:09:17 UTC