RE: [Bug 4992] Object identity needs to be clarified

I believe the updated version of the EPR proposal addresses point #1

Essentially, the SML EPR scheme as proposed for section 4.2.2 does not
conform to point #1 because binding information is not present in the
scheme under the proposal; however, SML EPR schemes based on the
proposed defined scheme (i.e., that extend it with additional elements)
might be able to support point #1, as mentioned in the proposed section

Kirk Wilson, Ph.D.
Research Staff Member
CA Labs
603 823-7146

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 11:49 AM
Subject: [Bug 4992] Object identity needs to be clarified changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
           Keywords|editorial                   |needsReview

------- Comment #11 from  2007-11-29 16:49 -------
The following has been added to section 4.2.2 Consistent Reference
Schemes. The
complete section now reads:

4.2.2 Consistent Reference Schemes

An SML model MUST be declared invalid when a recognized scheme resolves
to a
target that's different from the target resolved to by another
scheme or when one recognized scheme resolves and another does not.

To determine if two targets are the same or different, a model validator
obey the following rules.

   1. A model validator MUST consider both targets to be the same when
scheme is defined such that all information required to locate the
target is
contain within the scheme and a case-sensitive, codepoint-by-codepoint
comparison of the two reference scheme instances determines that the
representations are identical. This is the case with the 4.3.1 SML URI
Two targets MUST be considered the same if they are identified by the
same URI
as determined by a case-sensitive, codepoint-by-codepoint comparison.
schemes MUST state whether they fall into this category or not.
   2. A model validator MUST consider both targets to be different when
is something available in the element information items for the targets
tells them apart. For example, if there is an infoset property for which
the 2
targets have different values, they are different. This applies
recursively for
complex-valued properties.
   3. For all other cases, it is implementation-defined whether to treat
targets as the same or not. 

Note: the EPR scheme definition must be updated to comply with #1.

Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 17:56:55 UTC