Re: [w3c sml] Bug 4675 - SML-IF conformance concerns


Actually what's attached to 4675 is the latest proposal. It differs from 
what's attached below (an earlier version of the proposal) in that it does 
*not* require "all documents be embedded" and "schemaComplete=true" for 
"fully conforming" IF documents.

Essentially, it does not try to relate conformance to inter-op. From the 
responses from you (Ginny, hope I read your response correctly), John, and 
Kirk (not a firm one), I got the feeling (and was convinced) that the 
conformance definition should only mention the URI scheme.

Sandy Gao
XML Technologies, IBM Canada
Editor, W3C XML Schema WG
Member, W3C SML WG
(1-905) 413-3255 T/L 313-3255

"Smith, Virginia (HP Software)" <> 
Sent by:
2008-01-08 02:29 PM

"" <>

[w3c sml] Bug 4675 - SML-IF conformance concerns

As requested in our last meeting, I am re-sending my email that expresses 
my concerns about our conformance criteria. I also dug up Sandy's latest 
proposal (note that Bug 4675, comment #24 is NOT correct - the attachment 
does not reflect this latest proposal). I created a new document that 
includes only the parts that affect Bug 4675 ? so the latest proposal for 
4675 is attached to this email.
I wish to restate that I don't think the WG has spent enough time 
discussing this latest proposal in the context of our goals for 
interoperability/conformance to take a vote on this now.
-----Original Message-----
From: [] On 
Behalf Of Smith, Virginia (HP Software)
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 3:39 PM
Subject: [w3c sml] SML-IF conformance concerns
In addition to my already expressed concern that having 2 levels of 
conformance dilutes the interoperability that SML-IF is trying to provide, 
I have concerns about the SML-IF conformance criteria proposal.
The latest proposal is that full conformance requires every definition and 
instance document to be embedded in the IF document:
1. Embedding all definition and instance documents can create very large 
IF documents.
2. It seems unnecessarily inflexible. I can see scenarios where an SML 
model uses the URI scheme and some documents, particularly schema 
documents, will be available at a 'well-known' location (i.e., URI). It 
might not be necessary and or even desirable to embed the schema document 
in the IF document. But, in this scenario, the IF document would be 
considered only minimally conformant which would definitely not be an 
indication of its interoperability.
In addition, I would like to see the WG spend time working through the 
scenarios proposed by Sandy. For example, are signatures on individual 
documents likely to be an issue or just an interesting use case? Or, 
perhaps, a component providing a document to be part of an SML model would 
be expected not to sign references. And the question of "Different vendors 
could agree on a new scheme and start using it before it's adopted by the 
next version of the spec. Do we want to clearly disallow that kind of 
behavior?"  hasn't been answered particularly in the context of the 
conformance criteria. In addition, the connection between interoperability 
and conformance has been mentioned but no substantive discussion has taken 
place to explore this.
I know we are coming to the end of the year and there is pressure to wrap 
up but I must say that I am uneasy with the conformance criteria for IF 
and my feeling is that the WG needs to spend more time discussing 
conformance before making a final decision.
Virginia Smith
HP Software / BTO R&D
8000 Foothills Blvd | Roseville | CA 95747

Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2008 20:25:33 UTC