- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:23:30 +0000
- To: public-sml@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5496 ------- Comment #4 from kirk.wilson@ca.com 2008-02-20 19:23 ------- I'm not sure whether adding "conforming SML model" helps the issue I'm raising. I know we gave up the notion of "complete model"; it's impossible to achieve in reality. But let's assume we have an SML model; it consists of a set of documents. The interchange set may consist of that entire set or a "portion" (subset) of it. In either case the interchange set will represent an SML model, but if the interchange set is a subset of the "original" model, then the SML model represented by the interchange set will (in most likelihood) be a different model. The issue I have tried to raise here is that the definition of interchange set, in saying simply that interchange set "constitutes" the SML model being interchanged does not make it obvious to the reader that we may NOT be talking about the same SML model as the rest of text (namely, the one of which a portion of it may be interchanged).
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2008 19:23:41 UTC