17:56:41 RRSAgent has joined #sml 17:56:41 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-sml-irc 17:56:57 Zakim has joined #sml 17:57:06 Scribe: Virginia Smith 17:57:11 scribeNick: ginny 17:57:47 agenda is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Oct/0033.html 17:59:03 Meeting: W3C SML Teleconference of 2007-10-04 17:59:03 Kirk has joined #sml 18:00:45 zakim, who's here? 18:00:45 sorry, ginny, I don't know what conference this is 18:00:46 On IRC I see Kirk, Zakim, RRSAgent, pratul, ginny, MSM, trackbot-ng 18:00:54 Sandy has joined #sml 18:01:04 zakim, this will be sml 18:01:04 ok, ginny, I see XML_SMLWG()2:00PM already started 18:01:13 zakim, who's here? 18:01:13 On the phone I see ??P0, +1.425.985.aaaa, +1.603.823.aabb, Sandy 18:01:14 On IRC I see Sandy, Kirk, Zakim, RRSAgent, pratul, ginny, MSM, trackbot-ng 18:01:15 Valentina has joined #sml 18:01:32 +johnarwe 18:01:36 zakim, aabb is Kirk 18:01:36 +Kirk; got it 18:01:41 Zakim aaaa is me 18:01:43 zakim, ??P0 is ginny 18:01:43 +ginny; got it 18:02:20 johnarwe has joined #sml 18:02:26 +Valentina 18:04:08 +Zulah_Eckert 18:04:41 zakim, please call MSM-Office 18:04:41 ok, MSM; the call is being made 18:04:43 +MSM 18:05:00 zakim, who's here? 18:05:00 On the phone I see ginny, +1.425.985.aaaa, Kirk, Sandy, johnarwe, Valentina, Zulah_Eckert, MSM 18:05:02 On IRC I see johnarwe, Valentina, Sandy, Kirk, Zakim, RRSAgent, pratul, ginny, MSM, trackbot-ng 18:05:07 zulah has joined #sml 18:05:12 Zakim aaaa is me 18:05:17 MSM has changed the topic to: SML WG call 2007-10-04: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Oct/0033.html 18:05:22 +[Microsoft] 18:05:31 Zakim, aaaa is me 18:05:31 +pratul; got it 18:06:01 Kumar has joined #sml 18:06:59 Topic: Approval of previous meeting minutes 18:09:01 Jordan has joined #sml 18:09:43 +Jordan 18:10:36 Resolution: approved 18:10:51 Topic: Review of open action items 18:14:33 John: leave action 110 open for now 18:17:47 Pratul: close action 119 18:21:31 Topic: Wrap up discussion on "SML references" proposal 18:23:12 Kumar: why would an implementation claim to understand multiple schemes but resolve only 1 18:23:42 Sandy: Trying only 1 scheme is reasonable 18:23:47 Kumar: fine with that 18:24:40 Resolution: latest version of proposal approved 18:25:10 Topic: Review “hasProposal” bugs 18:26:58 Pratul: "hasProposal" is attached to bugs for which a proposal has been made; may have multiple proposals 18:27:40 MSM: useful to alert chair to add to agent for review 18:27:50 s/agent/agenda/ 18:28:08 valentina asks if "has proposal" kw ever gets cleared off of a bug 18:28:09 Valentina: when is keyword removed? 18:29:39 Pratul: when proposal accepted, remove hasProposal keyword and editorial keyword 18:30:18 -pratul 18:31:06 +pratul 18:31:54 Action: Virginia to document 'hasPropsal' usage and add to diagram 18:31:54 Created ACTION-128 - Document 'hasPropsal' usage and add to diagram [on Virginia Smith - due 2007-10-11]. 18:32:23 Bug 4639 18:34:17 Kumar: should we also have document cycles? 18:34:36 ... proposing only element-based cycles 18:38:32 I take Sandy's proposal to be: 18:39:10 the nodes of the graph we are testing for cycles are the elements whose declaration bears the xml:acyclic constraint. 18:39:27 s/xml/sml/ 18:40:10 the arcs of the graph are pointers from the SML reference element identified on the @ref attribute of the sml:acyclic element, to elements which are nodes in the graph. 18:41:05 I think the presentation will need to be work a bit to make this clear and easy to understand, but I am happy with SG's proposal as I understand it. 18:41:11 Action: Virginia to update proposal for this bug 18:41:11 Created ACTION-129 - Update proposal for this bug [on Virginia Smith - due 2007-10-11]. 18:41:55 Sandy: agree with MSM statement above 18:42:05 Bug 4656 18:52:11 Kumar's proposal is to make non-root elements optional 18:57:11 XPointer support is currently defined as partof the URI scheme, no? 18:57:28 y 18:57:43 and sml uri ref scheme is reqd by smlif 18:58:00 (not by sml, but definitely by smlif) 18:58:09 right you are 19:02:34 Discussion of whether fragment identifiers are required for new reference schemes 19:03:28 Here's the verbiage from SML spec 19:03:31 An SML reference is a link from one element in an SML model to another element from the same model. It can be represented by using a variety of schemes, such as 4.2.1 URI Scheme and Endpoint References (EPRs) [WS-Addressing Core]. SML does not mandate the use of any specific scheme for representing references; implementations are free to choose suitable schemes for representing references. References MUST be supported by model validators that conform to this sp 19:07:39 Kumar: Is a new scheme without a fragment identifier compliant with the SML spec? 19:10:04 Sandy: yes 19:13:30 [Did Pratul just say that his understanding of the original intent was that a scheme must support arbitrary target elements?] 19:14:02 SG: supporting a scheme means supporting the entire scheme. 19:15:33 Kumar: separate reference behavior from scheme behavior 19:21:11 Pratul: SML spec is not clear about requiring support for references to non-root elements 19:23:12 The intent of the original SML spec was implementations must support references to non-root elements' 19:23:46 I agree that the current wording is a bit ambiguous 19:25:17 SML spec should define references independent of reference schemes 19:25:42 Kumar, I think the discussion has clarified that there are at least two ways to make your proposal more precise: (1) state clearly that a scheme need not support references to arbitrary elements, or (2) define the URI scheme as not requiring support for fragment identifiers. I think there may be different levels of support for those two. 19:26:32 An implementation should be free to choose any reference scheme as long as it implements the syntax and semantics of sml references 19:26:50 Ginny: agreed with Pratul's statement 19:27:29 Action: Virginia to add rewording of spec to bug to address Kumar's concerns 19:27:29 Created ACTION-130 - Add rewording of spec to bug to address Kumar's concerns [on Virginia Smith - due 2007-10-11]. 19:28:59 zakim, who is causing noise? 19:28:59 I don't understand your question, johnarwe. 19:29:04 zakim, who is making noise? 19:29:15 MSM, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Kirk (5%), johnarwe (39%), [Microsoft] (35%) 19:36:14 Bug 4657 19:36:54 Action: Valentina to add her email comments to bug 19:36:54 Created ACTION-131 - Add her email comments to bug [on Valentina Popescu - due 2007-10-11]. 19:37:14 s/bug/bug 4657 19:37:59 related email is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Oct/0048.html 19:47:33 +Kirk.a 19:55:59 Valentina: disagrees with proposal 19:56:16 Ginny: would like to come back to this later 19:56:54 s/disagrees with proposal/ would like to think about it/ 19:57:26 rrsagent, make log public 19:57:35 rrsagent, generate minutes 19:57:35 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-sml-minutes.html ginny 19:57:43 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Sep/att-0077/Proposal_for_Allowing_smlkeyref.doc 19:58:09 people can also comment via email. 19:58:22 (and should, or we'll be here until doomsday) 19:58:34 Kirk's comments above refer to bug 4684 19:59:54 - +1.303.495.aaee 20:00:29 s/4684/4684 and other impacting bugs 20:03:12 -[Microsoft] 20:03:13 -Zulah_Eckert 20:03:13 -Valentina 20:03:14 -pratul 20:03:15 -ginny 20:03:16 -Sandy 20:03:18 rrsagent, generate minutes 20:03:18 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-sml-minutes.html ginny 20:03:25 -MSM 20:03:29 johnarwe has left #sml 20:04:23 -johnarwe 20:04:31 - +1.603.823.aagg 20:05:01 ginny has left #sml 20:09:29 disconnecting the lone participant, Kirk, in XML_SMLWG()2:00PM 20:09:32 XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended 20:09:33 Attendees were +1.425.985.aaaa, Kirk, Sandy, johnarwe, ginny, Valentina, Zulah_Eckert, MSM, [Microsoft], pratul, Jordan 22:04:06 Zakim has left #sml