- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:15:56 +0000
- To: public-sml@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5428
Summary: unclear passages
Product: SML
Version: LC
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows XP
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: Core
AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org
ReportedBy: johnarwe@us.ibm.com
QAContact: public-sml@w3.org
(1) 4.4.1 sml:acyclic
"This attribute is of type xs:boolean and its actual value can be either true
or false."
'actual value' is a precisely defined XML Schema term in this context, but
there is no hint to a reader that anything other than the colloquial meaning
should be applied. It is defined in
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/#key-vv and should be cited.
It is in fact the use of this term that allows the SML spec to ignore the other
lexically valid values that instances of the xs:boolean type can take on
("1","0") and not repeat the clauses used for sml:ref and sml:nilref involving
collapsing of whitespace.
(2) 4.4.1.1 Mapping from Schema
from: {acyclic} of a complex type
to : The {acyclic} property value of a complex type
(3) 4.5 Identity Constraints
from: XML Schema supports the definition of key, unique, and key reference
constraints
to : XML Schema supports the definition of uniqueness and reference
constraints
(this harmonizes them with XML Schema's actual terms, see
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/#cIdentity-constraint_Definitions
)
(4) 4.5.1.1 Mapping from Schema, last paragraph
from: complex type D, who is a restriction
to : complex type D, that is a restriction
(5) 4.5.1.1 Mapping from Schema, last paragraph
then {SML identity-constraints definitions} of ED also contains members of {SML
identity-constraints definitions} of EB.
This leaves open the question of "which members? all? any?" etc. This
question is answered in 4.5.1.2 step 6, probably should link to it for clarity.
(6) 4.5.1.2 Schema Validity Rules, item 1
from: XML identity constraint
to : XML Schema identity constraint
(2 places at least)
(7) 4.5.1.2 Schema Validity Rules, item 2
Inconsistent to say "{selector}" in item 1, and "The sml:field XPath
expression" in item 2. Looking at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/#declare-key , {fields}
would be the appropriate value if we go with the style of item 1. The
"expression" in item 2, regardless of its form, does need to be plural
(multiple fields allowed per selector, if SML identity constraints are truly
patterned after XSDL's).
(8) 4.5.1.2 Schema Validity Rules, item 2
"The sml:field XPath expression MUST conform to the amended BNF defined above
for the selector XPath expression with the following modification,to allow
smlfn:deref() functions, nested to any depth, at the beginning of the
expression." Tilt. What I _think_ this is trying to say: xs:field's BNF needs
the same modification that xs:selector needed (item 1), for the same reason,
and wishes to re-use the DerefExpr production. FWIW, item 1's words were clear
enough to me. I would just repeat them, and append words to say the production
is the same. As item 1 has, item 2 (desperately) needs to connect its text to
the BNF that follows...all the more so because item 2 refers back to item 1's
BNF.
Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 23:16:07 UTC