RE: proposal text for 5741

Hi John,
Thanks for the feedback. Diff is attached. Changes are in section 4.3.1 SML URI Reference Scheme.

The following is defined by our spec and is not in any RFC, therefore must remain normative:

1.    [base URI] property is used.

2.    Computation of [base URI] is app-defined.

3.    U is dereferenced to get target

4.    If target is not in current model then ref is unresolved.

5.    No fragment => root element

6.    If no smlxpath1() => unresolved (this will be updated for allowing shorthand pointer later).

This is subtle. Earlier we had uri#location-path and we applied the entire fragment (== location path xpath) to the root element. Now we have uri#smlxpath1(location-path), therefore we apply part inside ( ) to the root element after xpointer syntactical check.

From: [] On Behalf Of John Arwe
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: proposal text for 5741

a.  As stated is a tautology.  Which steps need to remain normative, and why, is needed.
b.  Covered by so should be fine.
c.  As stated looks recursive.  Best guess is that you mean (wrt Editor's draft) 4.3.1 item 2.c, but cannot be sure.  I don't see any obvious uri#location-path specificity in there, so I question whether or not I guessed right.  The proposed text would have to change again for the barenames resolution too, no?

could we get a marked up draft (diff, doc change tracking, whatever)?  I'm not good at screen flipping and mental deltas, and we do have tools for that.

Best Regards, John

Street address: 2455 South Road, P328 Poughkeepsie, NY USA 12601
Voice: 1+845-435-9470      Fax: 1+845-432-9787

Kumar Pandit <>


"" <>


Kumar Pandit <>


08/20/2008 01:22 AM


proposal text for 5741


The resolution was to make the relevant steps in “4.3.1 SML URI Reference Scheme” non-normative. When I started working on the bug, I realized 3 issues:
a.    we cannot make some of the steps non-normative because they need to remain normative.
b.    we had agreed earlier to use the term ‘the applicable URI RFC’ instead of ‘RFC 3986’ explicitly for the SML URI scheme.
c.    Item (c) was based on the earlier format of sml:uri (that is, uri#location-path). It needs to change to reflect support for smlxpath1().

I have captured the resultant text in the attached file. Please take a look to see if you are ok with it. If so, please reply to this email so that I can update the text before Thursday. If you do not you agree, please send your suggestions.

 [attachment "5741-proposal.doc" deleted by John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM] [attachment "5741-proposal.pdf" deleted by John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM]

Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2008 21:32:50 UTC