6191 2008-10-30 00:44:57 +0000 ambiguity in rule binding semantics 2008-11-13 07:23:05 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified SML Interchange Format LC PC Windows XP RESOLVED FIXED resolved P2 normal --- 1 johnarwe virginia.smith virginia.smith public-sml oldest_to_newest 22288 0 johnarwe 2008-10-30 00:44:57 +0000 One of the COSMOS JUnits that fails, http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/org.eclipse.cosmos/tests/resource-modeling/org.eclipse.cosmos.rm.validation.tests/src/test-resources/others/rulesWithMultiplePattern.xml?root=Technology_Project&view=markup , appears to have fallen into a hole in the current SML spec. The test case defines a single rule binding <ruleBinding> <documentAlias>/Units/DatabaseServer</documentAlias> <ruleAlias>DatabaseServerRules</ruleAlias> </ruleBinding> and an instances/document member with an alias of <docinfo> <aliases> <alias>http://interop.serviceml.org/Units/DatabaseServer</alias> </aliases> </docinfo> and a model base URI of <baseURI> http://interop.serviceml.org </baseURI> The test case fails because it expects to find one rule document bound to the instance document whose alias is given above, and the code says zero are bound. If one assumes that each <documentAlias> contains a URI reference (sic), then the test case's assumption about expected results would be consistent. If on the other hand one assumes that SML's use of the term "URI prefix" in 5.4.2 was intended to communicate that each <documentAlias> contains an "absolute URI" prefix, then its value should not be transformed to absolute. The same issue exists for <ruleAlias> I believe the relevant sections are: 5.3.1 http://www.w3.org/TR/sml-if/#URI_equality 5.3.4 http://www.w3.org/TR/sml-if/#URI_Processing 5.4.1 http://www.w3.org/TR/sml-if/#URI_prefix_matching 5.4.2 http://www.w3.org/TR/sml-if/#Rule_Bindings_Definition If nothing else, this test case makes it clear that we need to clarify how these URIs (or URI references, if those are allowed) are treated in the spec. We spent quite a bit of time scrutinizing document aliases, but relatively little on these. Note that 5.3.4 does not list <ruleAlias> or <documentAlias> contents as "URIs subject to SML-IF URI processing", the usual code word for "it's an alias", one of the implication of which -is- that relative references are allowed. If the intent is that relative references are allowed in this context, we likely need to amend the rules on when a base URI is required in SML-IF as well. 22377 1 johnarwe 2008-11-06 19:56:09 +0000 11/6 telecon agreed on the following revision. smlif 5.4.2, betw existing parag 2 and 3, add: Note: Since the URI prefixes specified as ruleAlias and documentAlias elements are aliases, they are subject to all of the processing for aliases as described in [5.3.3]. For example, if they are relative references then they would be transformed to absolute URIs before comparison. 22423 2 virginia.smith 2008-11-13 07:23:05 +0000 Fixed per comment #1.