5106 2007-09-30 18:48:18 +0000 sml 4.2.2 epr scheme 2007-12-07 06:51:33 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified SML Core unspecified PC Windows XP RESOLVED WONTFIX P2 normal LC 4637 1 johnarwe popescu public-sml oldest_to_newest 16908 0 johnarwe 2007-09-30 18:48:18 +0000 from: "...MUST be implemented by using instances of wsa:EndpointReference ..." to: "...MUST be implemented by using instances of the wsa:EndpointReference ..." (it's subtle, but there may also be an extra space to remove before wsa: from: "[Example Under Construction]" to: valid example 17494 1 popescu 2007-10-29 20:29:21 +0000 The current content has been slightly changed since the bug has been opened. Current content for section 4.2.2 : 4.2.2 EPR Scheme The EPR reference scheme MUST be implemented by using an instance of the wsa:EndpointReference global element declaration [WS-Addressing Core] as a child element of the SML reference element. Instances of the EPR reference scheme MUST NOT be interpreted as inter-document references in the context of an SML-IF document. The following example illustrates how the EnrolledCourse reference that references course PHY101 in MIT university can be represented using the EPR scheme: [Example Under Construction] <EnrolledCourse xmlns="http://www.university.example.org/ns" sml:ref="true"> <wsa:EndpointReference xmlns:u="http://www.university.example.org/schema"> <wsa:Address>http://www.university.example.org</wsa:Address> </wsa:EndpointReference> </EnrolledCourse> Changed to : The EPR reference scheme MUST be implemented by using an instance of the wsa:EndpointReference global element declaration [WS-Addressing Core] as a child element of the SML reference element. The following example illustrates how the EnrolledCourse reference that references course PHY101 in MIT university can be represented using the EPR scheme: <EnrolledCourse xmlns="http://www.university.example.org/ns" sml:ref="true"> <wsa:EndpointReference xmlns:u="http://www.university.example.org/schema"> <wsa:Address>http://www.university.example.org</wsa:Address> </wsa:EndpointReference> </EnrolledCourse> What changed : 1.Removed : Instances of the EPR reference scheme MUST NOT be interpreted as inter-document references in the context of an SML-IF document. ( this is already in IF; SML should not refer to IF ) 2. Removed: [Example Under Construction] ( you proposed to change it with Valid example but I feel this is redundant with the paragraph above ) 3. Replaced : ....as a child element of the SML reference element. with ...as a child of the SML reference element. 17495 2 popescu 2007-10-29 20:30:39 +0000 reopening.. I meant to mark it for review; changed keyword to needsReview 17661 3 pratul.dublish 2007-11-12 04:01:23 +0000 It is not at all clear as to how this example <EnrolledCourse xmlns="http://www.university.example.org/ns" sml:ref="true"> <wsa:EndpointReference xmlns:u="http://www.university.example.org/schema"> <wsa:Address>http://www.university.example.org</wsa:Address> </wsa:EndpointReference> </EnrolledCourse> references the course PHY101 in MIT university. Can we make the <wsa:Address> element more specific - say www.phy101.mit.university.org? 17672 4 popescu 2007-11-12 14:45:59 +0000 In reply to comment #3: The actual content of the sample is not intended to be addressed by this defect. Defect 4637, dealing with EPR scheme will take care of the sample's content 17677 5 virginia.smith 2007-11-12 19:05:55 +0000 Regarding the following content from comment #1 (near the end): "What changed : 1.Removed : Instances of the EPR reference scheme MUST NOT be interpreted as inter-document references in the context of an SML-IF document. ( this is already in IF; SML should not refer to IF ) " This statement should not have been removed. The resolution for bug #4819 (See comment #2 in bug #4819) states that this statement belongs in SML *not* in SML-IF. 17678 6 popescu 2007-11-12 19:40:51 +0000 re comment #5 Section 4.2.2 EPR Schema, SML core, already has this sentence which addresses your concern: 3. The EPR Scheme can not be used as an interdocument reference when used in an SML-IF [SML-IF 1.1] document. Comment on the sentence above : this is normative so we shoud probably reword this as : 3. The EPR Scheme >>MUST NOT<< be used as an interdocument reference when used in an SML-IF [SML-IF 1.1] document. 17680 7 kirk.wilson 2007-11-12 20:03:09 +0000 The normative statements in comment #5 seem to be inconsistent with the proposal made in 5119, which is proposed for SML-IF: (5) to the paragraph starting "In contrast, the wsa:address..." append "A sufficiently constraining reference scheme definition, e.g. one that determined the protocol binding used to interact with the endpoint, MAY assert that instances of the reference scheme are inter-document references." The case where it is possible for an EPR to be inter-document reference occurs when the protocol binding is sufficient constrained by the reference scheme defintion. I don't believe we discussed how that is to be done, so I suspect it is difficult at this point to say anything about the normative status of the EPR reference being an inter-document reference. 17815 8 popescu 2007-11-20 21:42:29 +0000 Since this defect was mainly intended to deal with minor editorial corrections on section 4.2.2 ( see John's initial description ) and NOT with the validity of the sample or EPR support ( which are to be addressed under 5242 and 4637 ) I propose to close this defect as fixed and move the discussion from comments #3 and #7 to that thread. Dealing in one defect with more than it was initially intended by the defect originator is confusing and hard to manage from an editorial perspective. 17823 9 kirk.wilson 2007-11-21 16:54:09 +0000 Full text proposal for section 4.2.2 epr scheme. This text also resolves issues 4637 and 5242 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Nov/0250.html 17824 10 popescu 2007-11-21 17:16:44 +0000 Changed back keyword from hasProposal to needsReview ( see comment #8 on why I did that) 18005 11 kumarp 2007-12-07 06:51:33 +0000 Resolving "won't fix" since the EPR related text has been removed as a part of fix to bug# 4637. ("won't fix" is the not the most correct resolution since part of the fix was already applied by Valentina. Though this part got removed due to 4637 fix).