This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 5169 - Consistent definition and use of 'rule document' terminology
Summary: Consistent definition and use of 'rule document' terminology
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 5112
Alias: None
Product: SML
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: SML Working Group discussion list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: editorial
Depends on:
Blocks: 4748
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-10-09 19:55 UTC by Valentina Popescu
Modified: 2007-10-25 19:09 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Valentina Popescu 2007-10-09 19:55:43 UTC
The SML spec mentions in section 2.2 Terminology the notion of 'rule documents' :

>>>This specification defines two types of model definition document - Schema documents that conform to XML Schema and rule documents that conform to SML's profile of Schematron....


The following paragraph in section 5 - Rules talks about schematron rules that are defined in their own document, as opposed to attached through an appinfo to an element type. It is not clear that these are the 'rule documents' mentioned in section 2.2 Terminology as they are not even once called 'rule documents'.
This is the paragraph in section 5 Rules that refers to this schematron rules :

>>>Model validators that conform to this specification MUST provide a mechanism to support binding of Schematron patterns that are authored in separate documents, i.e., not embedded in schema definition, to a set of documents in a model. The mechanism for binding such Schematron patterns to a set of documents in a model is implementation-dependent and hence outside the scope of this specification.  The following example shows the constraints for StrictUniversity expressed in a separate document:

Issues :
1. Although 2.2 mentions document rules it does not define the notion. I would expect since this section is about terminology, to state what a rule document is. 

2. Section 5 - Rules does not refer to the schematron rules defined in separate documents as 'rule documents' so there is no way to link this section with the terminology introduced in 2.2. The paragraph from section 5 copied above should be updated to mention 'rule documents' in relation to the schematron rules mentioned there.
Comment 1 John Arwe 2007-10-11 19:47:45 UTC
2007-10-11 telecon
Comment 2 John Arwe 2007-10-25 19:08:05 UTC
2007-10-25 realized I failed to update properly on 10/11.
Making this editorial per 10/25 wg consensus.

making this a dup of 5112
Comment 3 John Arwe 2007-10-25 19:09:13 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 5112 ***