Re: results of MS validator run against cosmos tests downloaded on 1/15/09

Looking at the CVS 1.4 version (latest at the moment, corresponding to 
Kumar's email), we seem to be drifting off of earlier discussions about 
test results (as a binary condition of "validity") and into "correctness" 
(invalid for "the right reasons") land.  Remember that we decided months 
ago that the latter part was out of scope... people convinced me!
16, 17: CVS is not the latest version, latest is in a cosmos bug awaiting 
integration by a committer
29: It's hard for me to call the test incorrect.  It's fine if the 
validator recognizes the xpointer() scheme.  SML would either need to add 
that as a new feature, or simply remove this test from the "relevant for 
interop" set as it did with the test cases with multiple sml:uri children 
in a single SML reference.
35, 39: Based on earlier discussions this seems like an informational 
comment: since our test plan states that expected results are phrased in 
terms of SML(IF)-validity, i.e. they are binary, the expected and actual 
results are still the same.  If the Microsoft implementation reports the 
model as invalid, that is a fact.  As we discussed back in November, each 
implementation probably wants to (in the case of "not valid" results) 
ensure it labels the model as invalid for "the right" reason(s), but that 
is irrelevant for CfI purposes as the working group has defined things. 
That said, I suspect COSMOS will happily change these "unintended" test 
cases and will communicate the SML wg remarks to them as in the past.
44: CVS is not the latest version, ...
55, 56: "1. incorrect test: documentation uses tags such as <p>, <code>, 
etc. that are not defined. , 2. check if rules are on type or in doc"  wrt 
#1, why does this effect the outcome of the validation test?  The content 
model for xs:annotation/xs:documentation is xs:any 0..* according to 
Structures 3.13.  wrt #2, they are rule documents in both cases, but I'm 
not sure why this remark is intended to assert/convey.
74: we can remove the remark if we like I think, since the primary feature 
is now == validation.
88: Since COSMOS contains code to actually test this case, it would be a 
regression from their point of view to change it as suggested.  SML either 
needs to declare the SML-validity results to be whatever results from 0 
reference scheme instances as it is currently coded (and let COSMOS have 
different results), or declare this test case as broken/uninteresting for 
interop since it uses the double-sml:uri syntax.  When we ran into its 
multi-sml:uri brethren earlier, SML simply stopped pointing at them for 
interop, so doing so in this case would be consistent with past decisions.
100: Again, the remarks (and resulting MS=I value) appear to be resulting 
from drift between SML validity results (in scope) and the -reason- for 
the model being viewed as invalid (out of scope for CfI).  That aside, 
where in our spec does it say this case is not allowed?  I saw nothing 
about it in SML chapter 6 when I tried to find a reference to point the 
COSMOS folks at.  Ditto Schematron.
101-105: As I pointed out before, "NA" is not really true.  For an 
otherwise valid model (i.e. one for which only the locid value itself, 
when used, causes a problem), an implementation that does not use that 
value should report valid.  Invalid... invalid.  This should be entirely 
predictable.
111-114: very similar to 100
144-152: test case source was/is attached to the email 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009Jan/0013.html

Best Regards, John

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