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

I agree with Sandy's suggestion on the bug.

I looked over the section with fresh eyes today. I'm ok with it as
worded. I'd only like to shorten the title from  "Resolving an SML
reference to assess its validity" to "Resolving an SML reference". The
section talks about model validity not reference validity.

Would you be ok with that?

My question about 2d is the following: if one scheme resolves and a 2nd
scheme does not resolve and target is NOT required, I would take this
bullet as saying that the model is invalid. I guess I can live with that
since SML does require all schemes to resolve to the same target.  

--
ginny

-----Original Message-----
From: Kumar Pandit [mailto:kumarp@windows.microsoft.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 1:03 AM
To: Smith, Virginia (HP Software); public-sml@w3.org
Cc: Kumar Pandit
Subject: 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 18:50:15 UTC