18:05:33 RRSAgent has joined #sml 18:05:33 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-sml-irc 18:06:32 Meeting: W3C SML Teleconference of 2007-09-27 18:06:43 scribe: Sandy Gao 18:06:48 scribenick: Sandy 18:07:10 zakim, who's here? 18:07:10 On the phone I see Kirk, Zulah_Eckert, MSM, johnarwe, +1.905.413.aacc, Jordan, Sandy, [Microsoft] 18:07:12 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Valentina, Jordan, zulah, Kirk, Sandy, Jim, johnarwe, Zakim, MSM, trackbot-ng 18:07:17 Kumar has joined #sml 18:07:23 zakim, +1.905.413.aacc is me 18:07:23 +Valentina; got it 18:07:32 +Jim 18:07:40 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Sep/0254.html 18:08:10 Topic: Approval of previous meeting minutes 18:08:35 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Sep/att-0253/SML_Weekly_Teleconference_--_20_Sep_2007.html 18:08:39 Resolution: approved 18:08:48 Topic: Review of action items 18:11:09 MSM: action 114. Don't know what it's about. Propose to close it silently. 18:11:15 If an SML identity constraint is specified for an element declaration E, then this constraint is applicable to all instances of E in a model, i.e., the identity constraint MUST be satisfied for each instance of E in a valid model 18:11:52 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4801 18:11:52 http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2007/xml/sml/build/sml.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Identity_Constraints 18:13:39 Resolution: leave both action 114 and bug 4801 "open" for another week. If no new information surfaces, close both. 18:15:07 Valentina: 122 is done. Expect to finish 118 next week. 18:15:25 http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/sml/users/29374 18:18:01 MSM: PLH's actions 116 is overtaken, because we closed the relevent IRI/URI bugs. 18:18:39 http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/sml/actions/97 18:19:14 -Jordan 18:19:26 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Jul/0075.html 18:19:48 John: PLH's action 97. Suggest that editors take this over. 18:19:57 Jim: I will follow up with this one. 18:21:25 +Jordan 18:21:47 John: 115 is done. 18:22:15 Topic: Process: review Valentina's "needs review" proposal 18:23:50 Kumar: the "yes" branch could also go to the mailing list. sometimes it's easy to do it in emails (in-lined comments). 18:25:24 Resolution: all comments must go to bugzilla; some comments may also go to mailing list (mailing list comments need to be copied to bugzilla) 18:26:15 Topic: 6. "SML references" proposal 18:26:46 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Sep/0107.html 18:29:23 Action: John to update the agenda when he puts out meeting minutes (about the "needs review" proposal) 18:29:23 Created ACTION-125 - Update the agenda when he puts out meeting minutes (about the \"needs review\" proposal) [on John Arwe - due 2007-10-04]. 18:30:17 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Sep/0237.html 18:35:26 (for the previous topic) 18:36:44 Resolution: accept proposal in mail http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Sep/0237.html. specifically, bugs stay open when "needs review". 18:37:04 please try open office, msm. 18:37:22 - +1.303.495.aaff 18:38:14 +Jordan 18:38:31 zakim, aaff is Jordan 18:38:31 sorry, johnarwe, I do not recognize a party named 'aaff' 18:40:15 Created ACTION-126 - Update the agenda further about the about process discussion. [on John Arwe - due 2007-10-04]. 18:40:21 (back to the "SML references" topic) 18:42:07 cgi-irc has joined #sml 18:42:42 Valentina has joined #sml 18:44:50 Kumar: D2.2 is already covered by D2.1, no? 18:45:08 no 18:45:17 D2.2 is already covered by V2.1 18:45:23 Kumar: D2.2 is already covered by V2.1 18:45:34 D and V are disjoint algorithms, though. 18:46:46 D2.3 refers to V2.1 ~ V2.4 therefore D2.2 is redundant 18:47:22 because V2.1 = D2.2 ? 18:47:27 Is there a typo in D2.3? 18:47:31 yes 18:47:47 s/yes/yes to john/ 18:47:57 I am having trouble understanding / parsing " then at least the condition of V2.1~V2.4 ... is true" 18:51:35 Sandy: agree that D2.2 is not needed, but it's because D2.1+D2.4. 18:53:10 Perhaps "the antecedent" would be clearer, but an explicit list would be clearer still. 18:53:42 But is it necessary to wordsmith this document so finely? If the goal is a coherent story, not spec prose, then redundancy is not dangerous. 18:54:28 Question: is the antecedent of V2.4 really a possibility here? 18:56:48 If *none* of the antecedents is true, then you MUST return one target. 18:57:03 If you return no target, then at least one of the antecedents must be true. 19:00:25 Kumar: change D2.x to be explicit about what happens for different conditions 19:01:43 paragraph starting "In summary, deref() has to obey the “at most one target” rule..." 19:01:46 [In sum, I think what SG proposed was: 19:01:47 E2.1. If none of the recognized schemes resolves, then no target is 19:01:47 returned. 19:01:47 E2.2. If at least one of the recognized schemes resolves to more than 19:01:47 one target element, then 0 or 1 target is returned. 19:01:49 E2.3. If one scheme resolves to a target that’s different from the 19:01:52 target resolved by another scheme, then 0 or 1 target is returned. 19:01:54 E2.4. If one scheme resolves and another doesn’t, then 0 or 1 target 19:01:57 is returned. 19:02:00 E2.5. If none of the above is true (that is, all recognized schemes 19:02:02 resolve to the same one and only one target element, call it T), 19:02:05 then one target is returned (namely, T). 19:02:08 ] 19:02:46 There are perhaps two "at most one target" rules? 19:02:57 1) the reference must have exactly one target, to be valid. 19:03:08 2) deref() must return at most one target, period 19:07:38 the statement is at best ambiguous--see issue 5070. Deref() must be used to validate constraints 19:14:22 zakim, please mute me 19:14:22 MSM should now be muted 19:16:01 zakim, please unmute me 19:16:01 MSM should no longer be muted 19:17:45 Kumar: note about D2.3: we should require that deref() at least attempt to resolve at least one recognized scheme. to ensure consistent validation behavior between the validators' reference validation and deref() results 19:18:15 Sandy: ok to have that restriction for deref() impls used by validators; but don't want to restrict other deref() impls. 19:18:26 discussion of the finer points of validating a single ref, validating a model (which includes validating single refs and possibly de-ref'ing them) 19:20:08 MSM: this helps interop? 19:21:03 Sandy: it helps get consistent behavior within the same processor; it doens't help with interop. 19:21:17 MSM: need to be clear that it improves inter-op, but doesn't guarantee it. 19:22:35 Proposal: deref() implementations used by validators MUST attempt to resolve at least one recognized scheme. 19:22:45 Resolution: adopt the above proposal. 19:29:19 All: clarify that section 5 means "sml:acyclic can be specified on any complex type; sml:target* can be specified on any element declaration". 19:30:26 Kumar: suggest to change title of section 5 not to mention sml reference type, but rather "where can reference constraints be specified". 19:30:36 The concept of "SML reference type" is unnecessary and has become extra baggage; it should be deleted. 19:31:03 Its function in earlier drafts was to identify where sml:acyclic and sml:targetXXX can be specified. 19:31:12 Our answer is now: on any complex type definition or element declaration. 19:31:15 Kumar: agrees to what MSM just typed. 19:31:21 -Zulah_Eckert 19:31:23 -Jim 19:32:17 Note that a processor may determine, through schema analysis, that valid instances of a particular type will never actually be references; that may be useful for optimization (if we know that all instances are valid), but it does not affect our rules about where acyclic and targetXXX can appear. 19:36:51 q+ to ask about item 1 19:40:26 -[Microsoft] 19:44:03 +[Microsoft] 19:44:33 Kumar: notes contradiction between section 1 and section 7. 19:44:39 Sandy: Answer to section 1 depends on how we answer section 7 19:46:10 MSM: why is bullet 1 in section 7 much harder to check? seems it's easy for the producer. could consider using the SML "standalone" property. 19:47:07 s/SML "standalone"/XML "standalone"? 19:47:10 s/SML "standalone"/XML "standalone"/ 19:51:36 Proposal (this was what I was reading the document as saying): 19:52:00 if sml-if:complete='true', then PSVI MAY be used; results are guaranteed the same whether it's used or not. 19:52:28 if sml-if:complete='false', then PSVI MAY be used; results MAY vary depending on whether it is or not. 19:53:51 Sandy: confirms what MSM typed is what the document meant to say 19:55:44 Kumar: "complete" is in another proposal. suggest to define the behavior without mentioning "complete", and say "complete may improve interop". 19:57:10 Sandy, can you say the two options again? 19:57:13 or type? 19:58:13 MSM: 3rd possibility: to use the XML "standalone" property. use PSVI when standalone = false. 20:03:01 Sandy: want to be able to find all references just by looking at the input infoset, which would rule out the "standalone" approach. 20:03:12 John: This was one of the requirements collected before the SML submission. 20:04:19 Sandy: possible problem with "constraint the producer" approach. if documents are digitally signed, then requiring producers to always add defaulted attributes may break the signatures. 20:04:49 Sandy: but "constraint the consumer" approach also doesn't satisfy certain cases, e.g. XInclude. 20:05:04 Action: Sandy to open a bug about the "digitally signed" case. 20:05:04 Created ACTION-127 - Open a bug about the \"digitally signed\" case. [on Sandy Gao - due 2007-10-04]. 20:05:11 Jim has left #sml 20:06:19 Proposal: take the "constraint the producer" approach suggested in section 7. 20:06:35 Resolution: agreed on the above proposal. 20:06:37 -[Microsoft] 20:06:38 -Jordan 20:06:38 -johnarwe 20:06:40 -Valentina 20:06:41 -Kirk 20:06:46 -MSM 20:07:05 Sandy: will update the proposal with these comments, as a reference for the editors. 20:07:26 rrsagent, generate minutes. 20:07:26 I'm logging. I don't understand 'generate minutes.', Sandy. Try /msg RRSAgent help 20:07:39 -Sandy 20:07:40 XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended 20:07:41 Attendees were Kirk, Zulah_Eckert, MSM, johnarwe, Valentina, Jordan, Sandy, [Microsoft], Jim 20:08:03 rrsagent, generate minutes 20:08:03 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-sml-minutes.html johnarwe 20:08:21 I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-sml-actions.rdf : 20:08:21 ACTION: John to update the agenda when he puts out meeting minutes (about the "needs review" proposal) [1] 20:08:21 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-sml-irc#T18-29-23 20:08:21 ACTION: John to update the agenda further about the about process discussion. [2] 20:08:21 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-sml-irc#T18-40-15 20:08:21 ACTION: Sandy to open a bug about the "digitally signed" case. [3] 20:08:21 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-sml-irc#T20-05-04