See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Virginia Smith
<scribe> scribeNick: ginny
<pratul> agenda is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Oct/0033.html
<pratul> Zakim aaaa is me
<pratul> Zakim aaaa is me
Resolution: approved
John: leave action 110 open for now
Pratul: close action 119
Kumar: why would an implementation claim to understand multiple schemes but resolve only 1
Sandy: Trying only 1 scheme is reasonable
Kumar: fine with that
Resolution: latest version of proposal approved
Pratul: "hasProposal" is attached to bugs for which a proposal has been made; may have multiple proposals
MSM: useful to alert chair to add to agenda for review
<johnarwe> valentina asks if "has proposal" kw ever gets cleared off of a bug
Valentina: when is keyword removed?
Pratul: when proposal accepted, remove hasProposal keyword and editorial keyword
<scribe> ACTION: Virginia to document 'hasPropsal' usage and add to diagram [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-sml-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-128 - Document 'hasPropsal' usage and add to diagram [on Virginia Smith - due 2007-10-11].
Bug 4639
Kumar: should we also have
document cycles?
... proposing only element-based cycles
<MSM> I take Sandy's proposal to be:
<MSM> the nodes of the graph we are testing for cycles are the elements whose declaration bears the sml:acyclic constraint.
<MSM> 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.
<MSM> 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.
<scribe> ACTION: Virginia to update proposal for this bug [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-sml-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-129 - Update proposal for this bug [on Virginia Smith - due 2007-10-11].
Sandy: agree with MSM statement above
Bug 4656
<pratul> Kumar's proposal is to make non-root elements optional
<MSM> XPointer support is currently defined as partof the URI scheme, no?
<johnarwe> y
<johnarwe> and sml uri ref scheme is reqd by smlif
<johnarwe> (not by sml, but definitely by smlif)
<MSM> right you are
Discussion of whether fragment identifiers are required for new reference schemes
<pratul> Here's the verbiage from SML spec
<pratul> 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
Kumar: Is a new scheme without a fragment identifier compliant with the SML spec?
Sandy: yes
<MSM> [Did Pratul just say that his understanding of the original intent was that a scheme must support arbitrary target elements?]
<MSM> SG: supporting a scheme means supporting the entire scheme.
Kumar: separate reference behavior from scheme behavior
Pratul: SML spec is not clear about requiring support for references to non-root elements
<pratul> The intent of the original SML spec was implementations must support references to non-root elements'
<pratul> I agree that the current wording is a bit ambiguous
<pratul> SML spec should define references independent of reference schemes
<MSM> 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.
<pratul> An implementation should be free to choose any reference scheme as long as it implements the syntax and semantics of sml references
Ginny: agreed with Pratul's statement
<scribe> ACTION: Virginia to add rewording of spec to bug to address Kumar's concerns [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-sml-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-130 - Add rewording of spec to bug to address Kumar's concerns [on Virginia Smith - due 2007-10-11].
Bug 4657
<scribe> ACTION: Valentina to add her email comments to bug [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-sml-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-131 - Add her email comments to bug 4657 [on Valentina Popescu - due 2007-10-11].
<johnarwe> related email is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Oct/0048.html
Valentina: would like to think about it
Ginny: would like to come back to this later
<Kirk> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Sep/att-0077/Proposal_for_Allowing_smlkeyref.doc
<johnarwe> people can also comment via email.
<johnarwe> (and should, or we'll be here until doomsday)
Kirk's comments above refer to bug 4684 and other impacting bugs
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128 of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/agent/agenda/ Succeeded: s/xml/sml/ Succeeded: s/bug/bug 4657/ Succeeded: s/disagrees with proposal/ would like to think about it/ Succeeded: s/4684/4684 and other impacting bugs/ Found Scribe: Virginia Smith Found ScribeNick: ginny WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: John Jordan Kirk Kumar MSM Microsoft P0 Pratul SG Sandy Valentina Zulah_Eckert aaaa aabb ginny johnarwe joined scribeNick sml trackbot-ng zulah You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 4 Oct 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-sml-minutes.html People with action items: valentina virginia[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]