- From: Wilson, Kirk D <Kirk.Wilson@ca.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:43:28 -0500
- To: <public-sml@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <F9576E62032243419E097FED5F0E75F3042B3C8F@USILMS12.ca.com>
Just a few comments on the SML-IF draft: 1. Section 4: there is reference to xsi:schemaLocation occurring in Schema documents. I believe this is permitted, but it is extremely rare and is not referred to again in the text. Section 4 should more explicit that xsi:schemaLocation typically occurs in model instance documents (but must be address wherever it occurs) vs. schemaLocation in the XSDL <import> (which also has to be addressed). 2. Section 4.1: Given the hoops that a processor has to go to dereference a document by means of an EPR (e.g., out-of-bound information may be required), do we still want to say that a locator can be an EPR? 3. In section 4.1, correct "pseudoschema" vs. "pseudo-schema". 4. A statement in the introduction to section 4.4 is somewhat confusing. The statement is made (after the first set of numbered items) about "This proposal...". THIS (specification) is no longer a proposal. Also, this statement states that the "proposal" pertains SML model validation, not SML-IF validation. Isn't it natural for reader to ask, What, then, is it doing in the SML-IF spec? Kirk Wilson, Ph.D. CA, Inc. Research Staff Member, CA Labs Intellectual Property and Standards Council of Technical Excellence Tele: 603 823 7146 (preferred) Cell: 603 991 8873 Fax: 603 823 7148 kirk.wilson@ca.com
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 20:43:30 UTC