4686 2007-06-21 17:44:13 +0000 Use schema terminorlogies to describe "xml schema valid" 2007-09-20 20:25:41 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified SML Core+Interchange Format unspecified PC Windows XP RESOLVED FIXED P1 normal Second draft 1 sandygao virginia.smith public-sml oldest_to_newest 15509 0 sandygao 2007-06-21 17:44:13 +0000 The "Model Validation" section has words like "document MUST be XML Schema valid" or "must be valid under the xml schema". But XML Schema doesn't define what qualifies as XML schema valid. Schema assessment produces PSVIs, which is the only output. SML needs to describe the expected behavior in terms of PSVI properties/values. There are 2 obvious options. 1. The [validity] PSVI property for the document element must be "valid". 2. The [validity] PSVI property for the document element must be "valid" and there is no descendant information items (element or attribute) whose [validity] is "invalid". The difference between these 2 options is that if a subtree is laxly assessed and something is marked [validity]=invalid in that subtree, the [validity] of the room is not affected. In this case, option 1 would say it's valid; while option 2 says it's not valid. Depending on the context, we may want to pick one of these 2 alternatives (or others). A couple of concrete examples. In the core SML spec, section "Model Validation". It's not obviously which alternative should be used here. And in the SML-IF spec, section "The Basics", SML-IF documents are required to be valid. Here it seems option #1 is more desirable. A concrete example SML-IF doc 16308 1 popescu 2007-08-28 16:34:41 +0000 copied from the f2f IRC discussion : <Jim> Bug 4686 Use schema terminorlogies to describe "xml schema valid" which is not a defined term in the SML Schema spec. *** pratul [c72bd072@128.30.52.23] has joined #sml <MSM> http://www.w3.org/XML/2001/06/validity-outcomes.html has an overview that may be useful here. <Jim> MSM differntiated between the notion of conformance in XML Schema 1.0 vs. 1.1 as follows: <Jim> 1.0 does not define the term "conformance" for documents. <Jim> 1.1 defines the "conformance" for SML Schema documents and Instnace documents. <MSM> no, not for instance documents. Instance documents do not conform, or fail to conform, to XSDL. <Jim> John proposed that we agree at an abstract level what we mean by "validity" to accomodate the second draft as it is to be reviewed by the SML Schema WG. <Jim> We can revisit as needed based on feedback from implementors. <Jim> Kumar requested that a note be added to the spec to emphaize that this is not a final definition. <Sandy> <my:root xmlns:...> -- valid <Sandy> <my:ref sml:ref="true"> -- valid <Sandy> <sml:uri>...</sml:uri> -- valid <Sandy> <some:element> -- notKnown <Sandy> <child xsi:type="xs:int>abc</child> -- invalid <Sandy> </some:element> <Sandy> </my:ref> <Sandy> </my:root> <Jim> Sandy made three proposals: <Jim> 1. That PSVI properties be exposed and available for use to the users/consumers. <Jim> 2. That we define our criteria for the boolean value of validity. <Jim> 3. That the notion of valid vs. invalid does not require any specific behavior by the validator or the process that invokes it. 16310 2 popescu 2007-08-28 16:57:42 +0000 Two options discussed for defining SML schema validity: A - NO invalid anywhere in tree - No constraints in root element B - NO invalid anywhere in tree - root element 'valid' Agreement to go with option A Editors to make a change to the 4th bullet in section 6. What to be changed as recorded by MSM in IRC: <MSM> proposal for second bullet: editors to clarify that this means "xs:schema element in each schema document has [validity] = 'valid'" <MSM> SG alternative for second bullet: schema document must give rise to a conforming schema (this is a stronger constraint) 16311 3 popescu 2007-08-28 17:06:41 +0000 More comments from IRC <Jim> Pratul proposed that for bullet 4, we should say something such as: <Jim> "For each document, validatin must be possible" <Jim> changed to validation assessment. <Jim> Wordsmithing to be dnoe by editors. 16330 4 virginia.smith 2007-08-30 00:13:41 +0000 Changed keyword to 'editorial' based on new comments. 16396 5 virginia.smith 2007-09-06 08:27:30 +0000 Bullet points 2 and 4 changed from: ====== - Each XML Schema document in the model's definition documents MUST be a valid XML Schema document [XML Schema Datatypes] - Each document in the model MUST be XML Schema valid with respect to the XML Schema documents in the model's definition document ====== to ======= - Each XML Schema document in the model's definition documents MUST satisfy the conditions expressed in Errors in Schema Construction and Structure (§5.1). [XML Schema Structures] - 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] ======= 16622 6 pratul.dublish 2007-09-17 15:30:45 +0000 Looks good - recommend approval by the WG 16730 7 pratul.dublish 2007-09-20 20:25:41 +0000 Resolving as per consensus in 9/20 call