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

I agree with Pratul's #2 in the cited email.  These elements should be
considered satisfied by the targetType/Element constraints.  If a
reference is null/unresolved and a target is not Required, then the type
(or element) of (intended) target is irrelevant.  If the reference is
null/unresolved and the target is Required, then THAT situation
constitutes the violation and we still don't know anything about the
tartgetType/Element.  

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, September 12, 2007 11:39 AM
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

           Summary: Hanlding of reference constraints on different kinds
of
                    elements
           Product: SML
           Version: FPWD
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows XP
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Core
        AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org
        ReportedBy: sandygao@ca.ibm.com
         QAContact: public-sml@w3.org


For the 4 reference constraints:
- acyclic
- targetRequired
- targetElement
- targetType

And for the 4 kinds of elements:
- non-reference
- null-reference
- unresolved reference
- resolved reference

We need to define what to do for all the 16 combinations.

It's easy to answer for the "resolved" kinds of the elements:
- targetRequired: satisfied
- other: check

During the 2007-08 F2F, the WG also agreed on the "non-reference"
category:
- all: satisfied

The remaining question is about "null-reference" and "unresolved"
categories.
It's obvious that "acyclic" should be "satisfied" for both cases. We
also
agreed (bug 4780) that targetRequired should be "violated". How about
targetType and targetElement?

That is, we need to define the following 4 cases:
null + targetType
null + targetElement
unresolved + targetType
unresolved + targetElement

The current draft seems to suggest "violated". But there is desire to
change
it, at least partially. See
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Sep/0019.html

Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2007 15:56:56 UTC