- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 16:42:20 +0000
- To: public-sml@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5519
Summary: Relationship between SML model validity and XSD validity
assessment needs to be precisely defined
Product: SML
Version: LC
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows NT
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: Core
AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org
ReportedBy: pratul.dublish@microsoft.com
QAContact: public-sml@w3.org
Comment #2 from
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2008Mar/0001.html
The relationship between (SML) model validity and (XSD) validity
assessment is imperfectly expressed at best. Some aspects of model
validity (e.g. SML indentity constraints) are parasitic on XSD
validity assessment, but that is defined in terms of its effect on the
PSVI. Other aspects simply use RFC 2119 MUSTs wrt properties of the
model instance. Still others say "The model MUST be declared
invalid". A single coherent story about model validation and its
integration with (XSD) validity assessment is badly needed. Section 7
does not really achieve this, as it uses language which is
inconsistent with that used in the various 'instance validity'
sections which precede it, as noted above.
The fact that some of the model validation language is declarative
(about properties of documents) and some procedural (about actions of
model validators) contributes to the above problem, as well as being a
bad thing in itself. Can the procedural stuff be eliminated?
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2008 16:42:32 UTC