Service Modeling Language Working Group Teleconference -- 19 Jul 2007

<trackbot-ng> Date: 19 July 2007

<scribe> scribe: Paul Lipton

<plh> scribeNick: Paul_L

Updates to minutes?

<plh> Previous minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Jul/att-0059/20070712-sml-minutes.html

Resolution: accepted

Reminder to register for upcoming 2 F2F's

<plh> John: remember to register

John: Dates are wrong for October?

MSM: Corrected now

Coordination group (item 5)

John: Take advantage of a company offering venue for January in January?
... objections (21st or 25th possibly?)?

<MSM> [Strictly speaking, PCATS is an association of companies, not itself a company]

<MSM> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Jul/0064.html

<MSM> ^ agenda

<plh> - week of January 21-25 Orlando, FL, sponsored by PCATS

<plh> - week of March 31- April 4 Redwoord Shores, CA, sponsored by Oracle

<MSM> Subject line is [w3c sml][agenda] 2007-07-19 SML Teleconference

ginny: Would like to check for these January and April meeting times (March actually) before we decide

Resolution: People should look at F2F dates and be prepared to discuss/decide next week

Intel status

John: Intel nominated Milan, but he doesn't have time.
... Intel moving to bad status for now. Vijay will come back and Intel will go back to good then (end of August?)

Philippe: Sun joined the group without nominating anyone yet

Process question

John: Marv emailed draft to John and Paul (and now public list) on this topic.

<plh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Jul/0076.html

John: Bassam said so many action items to bugzilla were hard.

Marv: (taking us through process/proposal)... at URL above
... Editorial group committed to bugzilla
... transcribing AI's to bugzilla hard and unnecessary
... Alternative proposal: all editorial action items go directly to bugzilla
... other AIs in meetings sill are action items (see email)

Kumar: What is an editorial change

Marv: A change to the candidate standard (the text?)
... Suggestion: If it's not clear that it is editorial change, then make it an AI But we don't have to be doctrinaire.

Kumar: Why not bugzilla for everything?

Marv: We have convenient mechanism for AIs while talking. Bugzilla better for workflow and editorial.

Philippe: Who is in charge of entering bug issues

Marv: Whoever knows the most about it is responsible.

Paul: Who decides if confusing?

Marv: Let the chair decide. If experts disagree, let them both make an entry. Editors will look at it and resolve it (worst case).

John: Or, let them decide amongst themselves who's doing it (we're friendly).

Paul: Simple answer? Work it out casually and chair only sets it to a person when not clear who took it.

John: sure

Resolution: We are all in agreement on above approach

<scribe> ACTION: Marvin to update his email and submit updated process to group [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/19-sml-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-106 - Update his email and submit updated process to group [on Marvin Waschke - due 2007-07-26].

Bugs on call vs. on email, etc.

MSM: the keywords field can be extended by people with proper authority.
... Each group that wants to use keywords to track things has added or repurposed keywords.
... Working groups end up with different conventions. Don't worry about what has gone before.

John: Expressed some surprise.
... Ginny you found list. Did you have anything in mind?

<MSM> XML Schema WG uses the keyword system described at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2005/09/xmlschema-bugzilla-ug.html

MSM: he can put it in IRC (see above)

MSM describing how bugzilla issues "evolve"

Virginia: Do you have to hunt in the spec or what?

MSM: In schema WG, editors draft wording. Produce versin of spec with things marked up. Put it on server and send proposal email to WG saying this is our proposal to fix bug #n. Never got in habit of going into bugzilla. Go into archive to look at msgs from editors.
... They never mix bug fixes in same proposal
... They use colored diffs.
... Label the changes in the XML source by hand (fairly manual).

Ginny: some concern about difficulty. Heavy for our simpler spec.

John: Import HTML into word type approach could be an alternative.

MSM: Smaller stuff is just described into bugzilla.

Kumar: How do you pick parts to be changed?

MSM: In schema, if change is simple, then a comment in bugzilla (editor) will say something and give new text. But, it's up to us.

Ginny: question1

MSM described other alternatives schema WG considered but rejected

Kumar: Is there a tool that creates diff as a file?

MSM: Many tools. They all have problems, but you can adapt.

Philippe: We have a diff at XYZ1

MSM: When editors prepare a diff, they get an HTML with coloring in his experience.

Ginny: we have a method now from Philippe
... Propose that we don't implement anything until after first public working draft.
... afterwards add more process.
... first working draft end of this month

John: first public working draft we do one diff
... Afterwards, we will end up with "two-headed process" simpler changes same as before and more complicated changes would be rendered as a diff.

Kumar: can somebody send info on how to create diff?

Action for Virginia send Kumar on how to create diff

<johnarwe> ACTION: Virginia to send Kumar on how to create diff [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/19-sml-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-107 - Send Kumar on how to create diff [on Virginia Smith - due 2007-07-26].

<scribe> ACTION: for Virginia (editors) have meeting in early august to flesh out diff and bug tracking process vs. first public working draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/19-sml-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - for

<johnarwe> ACTION: Virginia (editors) have meeting in early august to flesh out diff and bug tracking process vs. first public working draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/19-sml-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-108 - (editors) have meeting in early august to flesh out diff and bug tracking process vs. first public working draft [on Virginia Smith - due 2007-07-26].

Open Action Items...

John: Mine are cleaned up
... Can you close 105?

Philippe: yep

John: 83?

Philippe: sent an email right before call
... New proposal for wording, but not p1 so we'll do by email

MSM: Apologies. No progress. Hope to address later today.

Kumar: I will talk to Bassam. He or I will follow up.

Marv: Entered process thing as action item on me (96?)

John: 98?

Marv: Java 5 does not support IRIs

Philippe: Disagree.

Marv: not explicitly supported

Suggestion made we do this later

Bugs that we haven't already triaged

<johnarwe> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4865

John: Only one that I started (4865)
... AI to propose new wording on what it means to propose reference scheme. It's involved. It's a P2, so please read for later discussion or turns up. Existing text was hard to understand and he rewrote paragraphs.

Kirk: What about Paul Grosso objection about xpointer scheme?

John: Had discussions in IBM. Digitial sig ran into this.

Philippe: We are not an existing W3C Recommendation so we can't say it's already there.

John: if goal is element level references, there are alternatives, but they are less elegant.

Kirk: I will enter the bugzilla issue on that

Item 11 from agenda (review open bugs)

John: Intent was editors would look at list and bring to attention any worthy of discussion

Ginny: Didn't see agenda, but has a few things
... 4617 and 4651 need discussion. 4658 and 4753 are moved to P1. 4658 was dup of another one. Dup closed. 4743 made P1 is dependent on another bug. All others OK as I can see. 4693 (john to talk to Milan)

John: Move 4693 out of 1st public into non-public p2 first working draft.
... any objection?

Nobody objects

John: 4617...
... 4692 (4617 dependent upon it).

Bassam: Don't remember details.

<johnarwe> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4617

??: I'll take the action item

<scribe> ACTION: Bassam and Sandy to resolve and agree on 4617 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/19-sml-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-109 - And Sandy to resolve and agree on 4617 [on Bassam Tabbara - due 2007-07-26].

<scribe> ACTION: 109 = Bassam and Sandy to resolve and agree on 4617/ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/19-sml-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - 109

<johnarwe> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4651

Action 109 = Bassam and Sandy to resolve and agree on 4617/

John: 4651... Definition of consumer...

Ginny: Are we trying to specify what consumers must do with sML-if doc? What does the wording really say here?

John: Do we agree on this def?

Ginny: Related bug ("add text in section 3.2 ...). Places a specific requirement on consumers. Are we going to do that?

John: We need to cover validators, but all consumers are not validators.

Ginny: Validator is an instance of a consumer (not only one)

John: So do we change def of consumers to be validators or what?

Ginny: both approaches are valid

John: This applies to both specs.

Ginny: Why put any requirements on general consumers?

Discussion about if we are talking about anything more than validators

Jim: These distinctions are getting much more involved than first thought

??: Is validation all we really care about?

Ginny: P1, not first public.

MSM: Just focus on terms more tactically, perhaps, if we can't help people more.

Ginny: proposal to focus on things that actually mean something in spec. Come back later to add terms and other things that can help readers of the spec more.

Jim: Don't touch 3.1 and similar areas now?

Marv: Umbrella term like consumer too risky

John: Proposal to move it to P1? Any objections?

Resolution: Accepted

John: 4651 moves to P1

<MSM> zakim please call MSM-Office

John: focus on terms that the spec really uses (add other terms later)? Do we want proposal on this or consider later.

<MSM> +1 (agreement with JA's suggestion)

John: ... focus on helping the readers understand better.

Bassam: said +1

John: Proposal as per above... New bugzilla for adding the new terms? Do people want to do this?

Ginny: suggest no bugzilla

John: Then how do we consider readers of the spec?

Ginny: Editoral process supports this

John: Concern on losing this. Need to put ourselves in other people's shoes and don't want to forget
... Propose Open a bugzilla

<scribe> ACTION: John to open issue so that this stays in the "view" of the WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/19-sml-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-110 - Open issue so that this stays in the \"view\" of the WG [on John Arwe - due 2007-07-26].

MSM: Need to provide the docs to webmaster 5 days before the proposed pub date. You can specify a specific date, if you prefer (as long as enough time).
... Chair or somebody (editors) must be "doc contact"

Philippe: Chair should make transition request

<plh> http://www.w3.org/2005/08/online_xslt/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsl&docstatus=fpwd-wd-tr

Kirk: When will we see a draft

Ginny: Links and colored diffs are in email

<plh> Kirk, the links from Ginny are at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Jul/0002.html

- DRAFT -

Service Modeling Language Working Group Teleconference

19 Jul 2007

Attendees

Contents