resolution in conf call (5/1/08): mark needsAgreement

Proposal 
--------------------------------------
(1) accept the changes made in http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5715 as resolving part of this bug, since draft text is already available for this.  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5715#c4 addresses the consumer issue specifically.

--------------------------------------
(2) insert the word 'model', to align with the term defined in 5715
from: assessed by a conforming schema-aware       processor 
to  : assessed by a conforming schema-aware model processor 

Which address the following point(s):
Also section 8 refers to "schema-aware processor"--I'm not sure whether that is
referring to an XML Schema processor or a SML model validator that must be
schema-aware or to a general SML processor that is aware of the PSVI.

In the current editor's draft, a contextual excerpt is:
A conforming SML model is valid if and only if it satisfies all of the following conditions:
   1.      In each instance document in the model, the [validity] property of the root element and all of its attributes and descendants MUST NOT be "invalid" when schema validity is assessed by a conforming schema-aware processor with respect to the referenced XML Schema documents in the model's definition documents. [XML Schema Structures]

--------------------------------------
(3) define SML-IF Producer and SML-IF consumer in section 2 Terminology, as we did with model processor in SML, using text from SMLIF's conformance section 5
SML-IF Producer 
   A SML-IF Producer is a program able to generate a SML-IF Document from a SML model [Conformance].
SML-IF Consumer 
   A SML-IF Consumer is a program able to process a SML-IF Document using, in whole or part, semantics defined by this specification.  It MAY perform interchange set validation [Conformance].

Which address the following point(s):
First point: the fact that "SML-IF Consumers" perform
interchange model validation is not explicitly stated until section 5.1.  This
association needs to be made explicit earlier in the text. 

--------------------------------------
(4) do nothing

The proposed definition above (and, for me, the existing Conformance text) makes it clear that "SMLIF consumer" is a broad class of implementations, of which those performing interchange set validation are a subset.

The submittor may have been confused in this case by the use of (unqualified, i.e. not qualified with "SML-IF") term "consumer" in SMLIF, assuming it meant the same as "consumer" in SML (which, assuming all of 5715 is accepted), would no longer be a source of confusion (with SML).

The editors may wish to search for unqualified "consumer" uses that readers would find ambiguous.  There are at least a few unqualified uses in normative sections of the current editor's draft.

Which address the following point(s):
Second point: some
indication/justification should be given as to why this validator is a
"consumer".  Is it a "consumer" because interchange model validation consists
of additional processing above SML model validation?  If so we, then the
vocabulary developed in SML does not support the vocabulary in SML-IF. 

--------------------------------------
(5) insert 'XML schema' to clarify the meaning
from: allows            processor  latitude
to  : allows XML Schema processors latitude

This becomes more important now that 5715 has defined in SML a "model processor" that could be confused with this unqualified use of "processor".

Current editor's draft excerpt:
The XML Schema specification provides more flexibility in constructing the schema used for assessment than is appropriate for the semantics defined by SML and SML-IF for  interchange model validation.
   1.      It allows processor latitude

Which address the following point(s):
SMLIF minor, editorial issues: 
2.  Section 4.4 item #1 uses "processor"

--------------------------------------
(6) do nothing
(or receive a concrete proposal for change from the submittor, as I don't see anything obviously wrong in the latest draft)

Current editor's draft excerpt:
When performing interchange model validation over the SML model packaged in an SML-IF instance, associations between XML Schema definition documents and instance documents need to be drawn, both to completely validate XML Schema documents themselves and to establish the schema-validity of the instance documents.

Which address the following point(s):
SMLIF minor, editorial issues: 
1. There is a classic case of a dangling participle in section 4.4

F2F consensus on proposal in comment 2

- item 1: accepted
- item 2: revised to remove "by a conforming schema-aware processor" so it reads

In each instance document in the model, the [validity] property of the root element and all of its attributes and descendants MUST NOT be "invalid" when schema validity is assessed by a conforming schema-aware processor with respect to the referenced XML Schema documents in the model's definition documents. [XML Schema Structures]

- item 3: revised to

SML-IF Producer 
   A SML-IF Producer is a program that generates a SML-IF Document from a SML
model.

SML-IF Consumer 
   A SML-IF Consumer is a program that processes a SML-IF Document using, in
whole or part, semantics defined by this specification.  It may or may not perform
interchange set validation.

- item 4: revised to

The editors to search for unqualified "consumer" uses that readers
would find ambiguous.  There are at least a few unqualified uses in normative
sections of the current editor's draft.

- item 5: (SMLIF 4.4 item 1) accepted as proposed

- item 6: revised during meeting with a concrete proposal, namely:

When performing interchange model validation over the SML model packaged in an
SML-IF instance, an SML-IF consumer must draw associations between XML Schema definition documents and
instance documents, both to completely validate XML Schema
documents themselves and to establish the schema-validity of the instance
documents.

No need for further wg review expressed.

See diffs at:

SML (section 8 only):
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.w3.org%2Fcvsweb%2F~checkout~%2F2007%2Fxml%2Fsml%2Fbuild%2Fsml.html%3Frev%3D1.239%26content-type%3Dtext%2Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.w3.org%2Fcvsweb%2F~checkout~%2F2007%2Fxml%2Fsml%2Fbuild%2Fsml.html%3Frev%3D1.240%26content-type%3Dtext%2Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1

SML-IF:
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.w3.org%2Fcvsweb%2F~checkout~%2F2007%2Fxml%2Fsml%2Fbuild%2Fsml-if.html%3Frev%3D1.162%26content-type%3Dtext%2Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.w3.org%2Fcvsweb%2F~checkout~%2F2007%2Fxml%2Fsml%2Fbuild%2Fsml-if.html%3Frev%3D1.163%26content-type%3Dtext%2Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1

+1