[sc34wg3] DM conformance

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Patrick Durusau
| 
| Taking the idea that conformance to the XML Infoset is a
| "conformance is a property of specifications that use those
| definitions" one finds, for example:
| 
| The XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 spec claims conformance to the XML
| Infoset Appendix A: XML Information Set Conformance,
| http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xpath-datamodel-20031112/, which lists
| the properties used from the Infoset.
| 
| If we follow this path, does seem like conformance to the data model
| is something that would be claimed in the other parts of ISO
| 13250.

I used to think along these lines initially, and I think it was SRN
who steered me in this direction at the Berline meeting, but I've
since turned around on this. Don't you think it would be exceedingly
strange if ISO 13250-3 *didn't* conform to ISO 13250-2? 

And does it really conform to the data model, anyway? I'd say that it
*uses* the data model, and as far as I can see the same goes for every
other specifications I can think of, except possibly an API spec.

I'm not sure we really *care* about DM conformance, either. If
standards are about interoperability, then surely conformance is what
enables interoperability, and it should be tailored to that end. Now,
how does the DM actually affect interoperability? I don't think it
does; it's just a tool used to define what XTM, TMQL, and TMCL
actually mean. People must conform to XTM, TMQL, or TMCL, but I don't
see how they can conform to the DM.
 
| I rather like the idea of specifications claiming conformance to the
| data model as well as documenting why they are conformant.

Well, how could they not be? What could they do that wouldn't be
conformant? 

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >