18:05:17 RRSAgent has joined #sml 18:05:17 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-sml-irc 18:05:27 zakim, this is sml 18:05:27 johnarwe, this was already XML_SMLWG()2:00PM 18:05:28 ok, johnarwe; that matches XML_SMLWG()2:00PM 18:05:39 scribe: zulah 18:06:02 another place for getting IRC commands : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-policy/2006Oct/0001.html 18:06:33 +[Microsoft] 18:06:49 Zakim, Microsoft is me 18:06:49 +pratul; got it 18:07:01 scribenick: zulah 18:07:10 zakim, who is here? 18:07:10 On the phone I see Kirk, +1.905.413.aabb, Zulah_Eckert, Jordan, johnarwe, Marv, +1.610.277.aaff, pratul 18:07:12 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Marv, johnarwe, Valentina, Jim, Jordan, pratul, Zakim, trackbot-ng, Kirk, Zulah, MSM, Sandy 18:07:46 zakim, aaff is Jim 18:07:46 +Jim; got it 18:07:55 zakim, aabb is Valentina 18:07:55 +Valentina; got it 18:07:56 zakim, +1.905.413.aabb is me 18:07:57 sorry, Valentina, I do not recognize a party named '+1.905.413.aabb' 18:09:48 topic: approval of minutes 18:10:35 minutes approved 18:10:46 resolution: minutes approved 18:10:57 +[Microsoft] 18:11:12 Kumar has joined #sml 18:11:43 topic: "schema binding" proposal 18:14:39 Kirk: proposal side steps the issue of conflilcting schemas. Demonstrates issue with diagram in section 6. 18:17:37 eg, starting with diagram in 6: remove doc1, posit ref from doc2-v2 to doc2-v1a(or b). 18:17:53 We will hold off the discussion on this until Sandy is present 18:18:51 kumar: 2 scenarios raised in kumar's email do not appear to be addressed in the newest proposal 18:19:17 kumar: scenarios are listed in bug 4774 18:22:57 Action: Kumar will add a simple example to his scenarios 18:22:57 Created ACTION-132 - Will add a simple example to his scenarios [on Kumar Pandit - due 2007-10-18]. 18:23:24 section 4.5 is meant to cover the 2 cases Kumar mentioned (and possibly others); 6.4 attemps to answer how it's met. 18:25:51 Kumar: 6.4 doesn't seem to cover the scenarios 18:26:00 thanks 18:27:30 Kirk: question about upcoming F2F - what building? 18:27:40 Pratul: will send out information 18:28:04 Pratul: start at 1pm on monday, and then 8am tuesday and weds. 18:28:47 Local arrangement page: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2007/10/xml-meetings-general.html 18:31:06 Valentina: Would like to have list of all examples that we thinkn are important to be covered by the proposal to ensure that we address them all. Otherwise, examples will continue to come in. 18:31:35 Valentina: Everyone please add additional examples now. 18:31:54 Action: Action Items 18:31:54 Sorry, couldn't find user - Action 18:32:04 topic: Action items 18:32:58 http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/sml/users/25462 18:33:10 johnarwe: has action item 119 been completed 18:33:18 http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/sml/actions/overdue 18:35:09 action 119 has been closed 18:36:34 johnarwe: has action 120 been addressed (Refine this proposal to deal with document not reachable due to network issues) 18:36:40 http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/sml/ 18:36:43 johnarwe: we will leave this open 18:37:35 looking at action 97 18:38:37 johnarwe will look at action 97 to determine what to do with it 18:39:02 action 116: deals with iri's 18:39:10 johnarwe to close 116 18:39:43 kumar: #123 does have a proposal but has not added it to the bug yet 18:39:52 johnarwe: close action item when you add this to the bug 18:41:19 zulah has joined #sml 18:41:27 scribe zulah 18:41:39 scribenick zulah 18:42:09 scribe: zulah 18:42:29 johnarwe: action #5 to be removed 18:42:52 topic: "graph cycles" proposal 18:43:44 Jim: wants to postpone this to another meeting 18:43:54 Jim: recommends that we discuss this at F2F 18:44:15 topic: "keyref" proposal 18:45:31 Kirk: would like to delay this to F2F. Had a conversation with Kumar prior to meeting regarding technical issues with current proposal. Would like to integrate those comments. 18:46:16 trackbot-ng has joined #sml 18:46:22 Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/sml/ 18:47:39 Kirk: appears that either you can allow sml:keyref to refer to xs:key/xs:unique or you can't and have to keep sml symbols space disjoint 18:47:48 johnarwe: any strong need to have this in 1.1 18:47:50 Kirk: no 18:48:07 Marv: does anyone else have use cases for this proposal? 18:48:26 no on in group seems to have any 18:51:00 Kirk will rework this, the group will consider whether they have use cases, and the group will discuss this next week at the F2F. 18:52:56 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4978 18:52:59 topic: Review and attempt to reach consensus on other non-editorial "hasProposal" bugs, e.g. 18:53:54 Valentina: is the proposal to just drop smlerr:output from the SML spec? 18:54:37 kumar: yes. defining how schematron processors should produce errors belongs to schematron. We don't have structured messages for SML validation itself, so why have this for schematron? 18:55:12 kumar: secondly, it is an optional feature and we have many other higher priority issues to address 18:55:30 Valintina: has microsoft implemented this funtion? 18:55:37 Kumar: no 18:55:59 Valentina: IBM has and she is opposed to remove this. There were others, not only from IBM who wanted this in. 18:56:55 Kumar: Just because something is not in a spec does not mean companies cannot implement. Also, not in charter. 18:57:17 Kumar: Appears that this is out of scope given the charter 18:57:35 Valentina: SML error was part of the submission so it is in scope 18:58:30 Pratul: not taking a position just making some points 18:58:59 note to zulah to change last two Kumar's to Pratul 19:00:07 Kumar: has added issues that he wanted to raise inthe bug history 19:01:47 Valentina: suggests the need for a use case and reason to have this in the spec. 19:01:56 regrets - I have to drop off for another meeting 19:02:14 -Jordan 19:02:50 Valentina: does not believe that the fact that this isn't covered in Schematron doesn't mean that it is not necessary. 19:03:07 Marv: thinks that viajy originally proposed this and would like to hear form him 19:04:23 Action: Valentina will uncover the use case and reason for having 4978 and will clarify any issues 19:04:23 Created ACTION-133 - Will uncover the use case and reason for having 4978 and will clarify any issues [on Valentina Popescu - due 2007-10-18]. 19:05:10 Kumar: is not stating that because something is unclear is should be removed. And so adding clarification is not what he asked for. What he said was that whether or not this gets clarified, it does not belong here. 19:05:45 Valentina: we should try to understand why people thought that it was in scope and she will do the work to clarify the defect 19:06:11 Kumar: if this requires alot of debat it should come after all of the mandatory issues 19:07:11 johnarwe: any issues with moving from "has proposal" to "needs agreement" 19:08:16 johnarwe: add "needs agreement" and leave "has proposal" 19:08:35 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5095 19:09:48 johnarwe: currently both documents use "interdocument reference" and it means different things 19:10:30 Kumar: is the proposal to use interdocument reference in SML-IF and using cross-document references in SML where it says interdocument 19:11:34 Kumar: as long as we define the two terms clearly, he is okay with the proposal. As long as we clarify the terms. 19:11:57 johnarwe: difference between the two terms is as SML uses it, it distinguished between intra and inter document references 19:12:11 Kumar: they are all SML references 19:12:58 johnarwe: SML-IF has a wider definition 19:13:43 Kumar: would prefer not to introduce a new term and instead use sml reference (as opposed to cross document reference) 19:14:15 pratul: would prefer a single clean term. using sml reference in SML would cause less confusion 19:14:54 johnarwe: wouldnot object if we just got rid of inter/intro document reference in SML and just use sml reference 19:15:42 johnarwe: weed out interdocument references from SML and change to SML reference 19:16:15 johnarwe: we have concensus 19:16:34 Resolution: concensus on how to address #5095 19:17:07 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5098 19:17:43 johnarwe: changing 5095 to editorial 19:19:22 5098 19:20:23 johnarwe: issue is text between heading 4 and 4.1 of the SML spec. Could not see anything in here that makes a normative statement. Proposal is to move that text from where it is to a non-normative section. The end of the introduction is suggested. 19:21:11 Kumar: There is another bug that separates normative and non-normative text. And this could be addressed as part of that larger bug. 19:21:37 Kumar: We could leave the text as is and note this issue in bug #5091 19:22:13 johnarwe: will update 5098 to be dependent on that bug that I just typed in, and mark this editorial. 19:22:17 no objection 19:24:13 Kirk: moving back to 5095. Points out an issue with interdocument reference use in section 4 of SML spec (bold bullet) called "references" (same text as pasted in to 5095. 19:24:22 johnarwe: points out need for editing 19:25:33 s/no objection/no objection to making 5098 dependent upon 5091/ 19:25:50 Kumar: clarification on 5098. Address 5091 first, and then address 5098. He believes that as 5091 is addressed then 5098 will be resolved. 19:26:24 Valentina: wants clarification on how the editors should deal with this. 19:27:05 Kumar: if you fix 5098 first, the issue is that none of the sections are marked normative. So this issue should be resolved after the sections are marked. 19:27:31 johnarwe: both 5091 and 5098 are currently no target 19:27:45 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5099 19:29:51 Zulah has joined #sml 19:29:55 make 5099 dependent upon 5091? 19:30:05 scribe Zulah 19:30:09 scribenick Zulah 19:31:02 johnarwe: proposal is to make 5099 dependent on 5091 and to mark it editorial 19:31:14 Resolution: agreed 19:31:34 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5104 19:32:04 johnarwe: beleives that this is primarily editorial 19:33:09 Kumar: needs clarification on problems 19:34:28 Marv: seems like a best practice, not normative 19:35:24 Kumar: would like this to be normative. Claim is that producer is using URI scheme, but does not use it everywhere. So either you make this claim or you don't. 19:35:45 Kumar: more than a guideline because without this there will be inconsistency 19:36:01 johnarwe: you are correct in saying that validation results could be different 19:36:25 Kumar: unless we see harm in keeping it the way it is we shouldl keep it. 19:36:37 johnarwe: the way that is is written is not clear 19:37:23 Kumar: agrees that this is not clear 19:37:43 johnarwe: we did not necessarily agree on what the original intent was. 19:38:42 Kumar: use same bug (#5104) and add clarification 19:39:26 johnarwe: move this to "needs agreement", and will update it to include discussion about two different interpretations (text) of original intent 19:41:42 no additional issues with 5104 19:41:51 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5107 19:42:47 johnarwe: this is redundant text and without the spec one could probably not agree on whether it is or not 19:42:59 johnarwe: should we leave it to the editors to determine if this is redundant 19:43:13 pratul: believes that this is redundant (reads spec) 19:43:38 pratul: would like the editors to verify this 19:43:54 johnarwe: any objections? 19:44:15 Resolution: move bug to editorial 19:44:30 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5112 19:45:25 Kumar: can we have more time on 5112? 19:45:37 Valentina: seems to be a duplicate of 5169 19:45:57 -Marv 19:46:25 Valentina: SML does not define the rule document. If we fix the defect 5169 then we also solve this one 19:47:03 johnarwe: removing editorial from 5169 and making it dependent on 5112 - any objections? 19:47:21 Kumar: Is the proposal saying that the specific binding mechanism will be defined in SML spec? 19:47:34 s/Kumar/Pratul/ 19:47:55 Pratul: is proposal to define mechanism in SML spec? 19:48:06 +Marv 19:48:07 johnarwe: concept, not syntax to be defined 19:48:25 Section 5 has the following verbiage 19:48:27 Model validators that conform to this specification MUST provide a mechanism to support binding of Schematron patterns that are authored in separate documents, i.e., not embedded in schema definition, to a set of documents in a model. The mechanism for binding such Schematron patterns to a set of documents in a model is implementation-dependent and hence outside the scope of this specification. 19:48:46 Valentina: she could not find the definition in the spec 19:49:03 Pratul: believes that the above portion of section 5 does define 19:49:17 trackbot-ng has joined #sml 19:49:23 Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/sml/ 19:49:31 Valentina: it does define but doesn't say that it is the definition 19:49:49 Pratul: the spec defines a rule but not a rule document. May want to deifine this 19:50:30 A binding is an association of a set of one or more rule documents with a set of zero or more model documents. The documents associated with a given rule document are said to be "bound" to it. For a model to be valid, every document in the model must conform to the constraints defined by every rule document it is bound to. It is permissible for a rule document to have no bindings associated with it, and for a model document to be bound to zero rule documents 19:50:34 johnarwe: first paragraph of SMF-IF 3.5.2 defines a binding. 19:51:01 johnarwe: further makes and assertion about model validity base on bindings 19:51:33 Pratul: suggests removal of verbage about model validity 19:51:53 johnarwe: thinks this belongs in SML and if we add rule document definition this should cover it 19:52:20 Pratul: doesn't see that binding is covered by a definition of rule document 19:53:08 Valentina: SML spec says that it defines schema documents and rule documents. There is no definition of a rule document in the spec other than this. 19:53:20 Pratul: agrees that we should define rule document in the SML spec 19:53:30 Pratul: additional issue is defining bindings 19:53:56 Pratul: SML spec has a notion of binding but has no mechanism - this is how bindings must be defined. 19:54:25 johnarwe: syntax stays in SML-IF but that first paragraph (pasted above) should be moved to SML spec 19:55:17 johnarwe: we have made 5119 dependent on 5112 19:56:01 johnarwe: the concecptual proposal is to define the concet of binding and rule document in SML and to define the syntax by which rule documents are bound to instances in SML-IF. 19:57:14 no objections to the conceptual proposal 19:57:58 johnarwe: can we move 5112 as presented to "editorial"? 19:58:10 no objections 19:58:58 s/5119/5169/ 19:59:40 Resolution: move 5112 to "editorial", make 5169 dependent on 5112, and agreed on conceptual proposal to define concept of binding and rule document in SML spec and the syntax by which rule documents are bound to inistances in the SML-IF spec. 20:01:11 -pratul 20:01:15 -Kirk 20:01:20 -Valentina 20:01:30 - +1.360.383.aagg 20:01:49 rrsagent, generate minutes 20:01:49 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-sml-minutes.html johnarwe 20:01:57 zakim, who is here 20:01:57 johnarwe, you need to end that query with '?' 20:02:04 zakim, who is here? 20:02:04 On the phone I see Zulah_Eckert, johnarwe, Jim, [Microsoft] 20:02:06 On IRC I see trackbot-ng, Zulah, Kumar, RRSAgent, johnarwe, Valentina, Jim, Zakim 20:02:32 -[Microsoft] 20:02:38 -Jim 20:02:41 Jim has left #sml 20:30:32 johnarwe has left #sml 20:41:54 MSM has joined #sml 20:43:18 Sandy has joined #sml 21:01:41 -johnarwe 21:01:42 -Zulah_Eckert 21:01:44 XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended 21:01:46 Attendees were Kirk, Valentina, Zulah_Eckert, Jordan, johnarwe, Marv, Jim, pratul, [Microsoft] 22:04:42 Zakim has left #sml