4637 2007-06-12 22:51:56 +0000 What should we do with EPR scheme? 2007-12-07 06:47:00 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified SML Core unspecified PC Linux RESOLVED FIXED http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2007/xml/sml/build/sml.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#EPR_Scheme P2 normal LC 5106 1 plh kumarp public-sml oldest_to_newest 15395 0 plh 2007-06-12 22:51:56 +0000 At the minimum, the example needs to be modified since it is using reference parameters to identify resources, which is contrary to the Web Services Addressing 1.0 recommendation. Should we be specific on how to dereference the EPR? How are we going to do interop testing on this part? 16494 1 kirk.wilson 2007-09-12 12:49:40 +0000 Valentina has submitted a use case for the "EPR scheme": http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Sep/0078.html However, Kirk argued that the issue that the use case brings up is the transport of a reference to a service that maintains XML documents: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Sep/0085.html. It was also argued that embedded a referent in the wsa:ReferenceParameters may not be the best approach to addressing this issue. Whether we should address this issue in the specification and how we should address it requires agreement of the group. I would support discussing the approach to transporting references in the spec as a way to define interoperability between model builders and the data center services that maintain model documents. 17720 2 kirk.wilson 2007-11-14 14:27:54 +0000 Initial draft of a proposal. Basically, this version lays out the arguments for a new direction of a solution. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Nov/0164.html 17821 3 kirk.wilson 2007-11-21 16:48:48 +0000 Final proposal dealing with both the definition of the epr scheme and resolution process (issue 5242). http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Nov/0250.html 17860 4 popescu 2007-11-27 19:59:29 +0000 +1 on Kirk's proposal attached under comment #3 17872 5 kumarp 2007-11-28 06:40:38 +0000 I agree with the proposal. 17882 6 Jordan.Boucher 2007-11-28 22:15:15 +0000 +1, I agree with the proposal. 17884 7 sandygao 2007-11-28 23:28:30 +0000 I also agree with this proposal. A few minor changes are suggested in this email. Note that some of the suggested changes also apply to the SML URI scheme definition. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Nov/0304.html 17890 8 kirk.wilson 2007-11-29 00:40:26 +0000 Revised version of section 4.2.2: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Nov/0310.html 17895 9 kumarp 2007-11-29 01:58:50 +0000 I agree with the revised proposal. 17995 10 kirk.wilson 2007-12-06 21:15:48 +0000 Decision on teleconference of 12/6/2007: move EPR scheme to a W3C Note. This requires several changes to the current text of the SML and SML-IF specifications. These places are: SML spec: Introductory paragraph of section 4.2 refers to the EPR scheme as one of "the two" schemes defined in the specification. SML spec: content of section 4.2.2 needs to completely deleted. Suggestion: this would be an appropriate place to discuss the SML "extension mechanism" for defining additional schemes. For example, to identify the "categories" of schemes that are identified in SML-IF section 5.3.3 (ignoring the schemaLocation but including non-URI schemes). SML spec: Appendix D. There is example code that contains an example of an EPR scheme that should deleted, and there is text following that example that discusses having two scheme in one reference. That text needs to be deleted. SML-IF spec: The only place the EPR scheme is mentioned is in section 5.3.3, where it is given as an example of category 3 URI reference. The text will have to be generalized or perhaps the the EPR scheme as a potential type of such a category. 18004 11 kumarp 2007-12-07 06:47:00 +0000 EPR related text mentioned by Kirk removed from SML & SML-IF specs.