- 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