Proposal:
Replace the current text of bullet 2 in section 4.2.1 SML URI scheme.

2. The SML URI scheme is resolved using the following steps:
a.	A document is obtained by dereferencing the URI, sans fragment identifier, using the appropriate operation defined for the scheme used in that URI. If there is no document retrieved, the scheme is unresolved.
b.	If a fragment identifier is not present in the URI, the root element of the retrieved document is returned.
c.	If a fragment identifier is present in the URI, the fragment identifier is applied to the root element of the retrieved document and the resulting node-set is returned.

Reasons:
A URI is a broadly defined term. Although most URIs fit into the resource access paradigm, not all do (for example, the mailto scheme). The specific operations supported for a given URI scheme depend on the scheme definition. There is no standard set of common operations meaningful across all URI schemes. This means that it is not possible to define a set of operations required for dereferencing a URI because it depends on the scheme used. Since the sml:uri definition does not place any restriction on the schemes that can be used, it is not possible to define the set of operations to be performed in order to dereference sml:uri. Consequently, we define this simply as dereference the URI using the appropriate operation defined for the scheme used.

2a: at the end, I think you want to say the reference is unresolved (currently says 'scheme' instead of 'ref')
2a uses variations on "resolved", 2b and 2c "returned".  It sounds as if two closely related concepts may be mixed together.  Or maybe 2b and 2c should be saying "resolves to [current content] [remove "is returned"]", not sure.

The spirit sounds right, I think it's just particular words at issue.

Resolution: accept proposal with the following changes:

- Use URI reference
- In 2a, say "scheme instance is unresolved" rather that 'scheme is unresolved'.