This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
from f2f discussion, MSM base URI #1: 1. Apparent inconsistency in definition and use of the term 'target-complete' SML says (2.2): A target-complete identifier is a URI or IRI that contains all the information required to locate a target of an SML reference. It is a consequence of this definition that a target-complete identifier cannot be a relative URI/IRI. This seems to say explicitly that "relative URI/IRI" and "target-complete identifier" are disjoint classes. But SML 4.3 says of references defined by some arbitrary reference scheme: An SML reference scheme definition MUST specify all of the following: ... 3. An assertion that states whether or not the reference scheme uses target-complete identifiers. Using target-complete identifiers requires all the following: 2. If these references are allowed to be relative references, i.e. they are not already target-complete, then some implementation-dependent base URI or IRI is used to resolve them to URIs or IRIs. (See section 5 of [IETF RFC 3986] and section 6.5 of [IETF RFC 3987].) If "relative URI/IRI" and "target-complete identifier" are disjoint classes, this makes no sense. If 3b makes sense, then the claim in 2.2 about the consequence of the definition of "target-complete" is false. I don't think I care how this is resolved, only that the terms be used consistently. ---------------------- The discussion led to us agreeing that in 4.3, the target complete identifiers the SML URI ref scheme "uses" refers to the after-normalization form not the input markup an ordinary user would observe in an instance document. Neither "uses" nor "requires" was found to make this distinction adequately. MSM to update this bug with other suggestions.
Assumption: The definition of target-complete identifier in the Terminology section defines the target-complete identifier as output. This idea should be maintained unambiguously through thought the discussion. Thus, the discussion in 4.2.3 must be written in such a way as it recognizes the target-complete identifier calculation, i.e., the input to the calculation is the identifier provided by the reference scheme definition, the output is the target-complete identifier. Concrete revisions: 4.2.3 From: 1. If both of the following are true, then a model validator MUST consider both targets to be the same. a. The definition of the scheme(s) used to locate the targets specifies that the scheme uses target-complete identifiers. [4.3 SML Reference Schemes] b. The two target-complete identifiers used to locate the targets are identical using a case-sensitive, codepoint-by-codepoint comparison. TO: lead sentence no change. a. The definition of the reference scheme(s) specifies how the URIs are transformed to target-complete identifiers. b. The two target-complete identifiers [delete clause: "used to locate the targets"] are identifical using . . . etc. 4.3 item #3 From: An assertion that states whether or not the reference scheme uses target-complete identifiers. To: An assertion that states whether instances of the reference scheme are transformed to target-complete identifiers. If they are transformed to target-complete identifiers, the reference scheme definition MUST describe the transformation process. 4.3.1 item #3 From: The SML URI Reference Scheme uses target-complete identifiers. To: Instances of the SML URI Reference Scheme are transformed to target-complete identifiers through standard URI processing, as described in [XXX]. (citations depend on issue 5541).
Note that final citations are dependent upon bug 5541, hence needs review after changes.
needs review AFTER changes made
Correction to comments #1 and #2. The relevant issue that addresses the completion of item #3 in 4.3.1 is 5542.
Created attachment 563 [details] comment# 5
Diff for the fix attached: sml-diff.htm
+1