Re: [w3c sml] Comments on third public draft SML-IF

OK, I'll ask since no one else took the bait :-)
One would then assume that each of these will be showing up as new 
bugzilla(s) as usual, riiiiight?
So the editors have a single work queue and place to pull from, as they 
have previously requested and everyone agreed to...

Best Regards, John

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

"Wilson, Kirk D" <> 
Sent by:
01/15/2008 03:43 PM


[w3c sml]  Comments on third public draft SML-IF

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

Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2008 17:48:08 UTC