IRC log of sml on 2007-10-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

00:02:30 [pratul]
pratul has joined #sml
00:02:37 [pratul]
Here's the new text
00:02:41 [pratul]
SML [SML 1.1] defines two reference schemes, the sml:uri scheme and the EPR scheme. The definition of the sml:uri scheme specifies that it is an SML-IF inter-document, but the definition of EPR scheme specifies that it is not an SML-IF inter-document reference. SML also permits new schemes to be created without limit. The definition of each new scheme MUST be explicit about whether the scheme is an SML-IF inter-document reference.
00:09:39 [Jim]
Jim has joined #sml
00:10:43 [Marv]
Marv has joined #sml
00:12:42 [Marv]
5121: Remove 3.4.3 from SML-IF spec and move bullet point 3 to the SML spec ,
00:13:48 [Marv]
The SML spec will then specify that new scheme authors must indicate whether or not the new scheme is an SML-IF inter doc ref.
00:14:43 [Marv]
00:36:50 [Marv]
Are multiple xml:base s needed?
00:38:45 [Sandy_]
Sandy_ has joined #sml
00:59:29 [Zulah]
Zulah has joined #sml
01:18:44 [Marv]
All to consider xml:base and 5171 overnight.
01:21:30 [Marv]
How much latitude do we want to allow in interchange documents?
01:22:31 [johnarwe]
johnarwe has left #sml
01:23:41 [Marv]
generate minutes
01:24:28 [Marv]
rrsagent, draft minutes
01:24:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Marv
01:27:35 [Jim]
Jim has left #sml
01:44:26 [MSM]
MSM has joined #sml
15:29:00 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sml
15:29:00 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:30:16 [Valentina]
scribe: Valentina
15:30:43 [Valentina]
Meeting: SML f2f Redmond, second day 10-16-2007
15:31:01 [Valentina]
chair: Pratul
15:31:15 [zeckert]
zeckert has joined #sml
15:31:54 [Valentina]
Topic: continue discussion on 5171
15:32:39 [Valentina]
15:33:13 [Marv]
Marv has joined #sml
15:33:40 [Valentina]
John: producer may not understand all relative URI's
15:34:45 [Valentina]
John: if the consumer has these scheme available he may be able to understand them
15:35:27 [johnarwe]
15:36:29 [johnarwe]
if the producer is serializing content, some GEDs may be matching wildcards. if an element matches a wildcard to the producer, it cannot know if relative URIs are contained within the wildcard-matching elements.
15:36:50 [Valentina]
Pratul : SMLIF is just a package and the spec should only talk about the content; everything else is out of scope ( such as how a consumer should process some information )
15:37:26 [johnarwe]
the consumer on the other hand may have schemas available that allow it to recognize the elements (that the producer sees as wildcard matches)
15:38:12 [johnarwe]
therefore the consumer would find an unmodified relative URI and it would not be correctly interpreted
15:39:11 [Valentina]
Ginny: how does the producer know what needs to fix in the IF document ; question relative to the anyURI contained by the document ?
15:39:48 [Valentina]
s/question relative to the anyURI contained by the document/(question relative to the anyURI contained by the IF document)
15:40:39 [Valentina]
Pratul: do we have agreement on bug 5171 or we should move to thenext bug on the list ?
15:41:37 [Valentina]
Sandy: as long as you take a set of documents and package them in the IF document, their base uri is lost
15:43:10 [Valentina]
Sandy: how the consumer know how to unpack the documents ?
15:43:51 [Valentina]
Pratul: in SQL implementations, data is not stored as file system
15:44:03 [Valentina]
15:44:36 [Valentina]
Kumar: so the unpacking of the documents is not an issue here
15:45:49 [Valentina]
Pratul: discusses an IF sample
15:47:23 [Valentina]
Kumar: there are 4 places from where you can get the document base URI
15:47:57 [Valentina]
Kumar: the producer should make sure the document content is right so that the consumer can understand it
15:49:00 [Valentina]
Sandy: there is some information available on base URI that is not in the IF ( for example on the file system if file location ); do you suggest to add this to the IF document ?
15:49:26 [Valentina]
Sandy: but what if I already have an xml:base attribute ?
15:50:21 [Valentina]
Pratul: if there is already one don't add another one
15:52:03 [Valentina]
Kumar: document aliases in IF does not represent location, is just a way to identify a document
15:56:14 [Valentina]
Sandy: a consumer should be able to consume IF documents produced by any producer
15:56:53 [Valentina]
Sandy: so a consumer needs to have some information in the IF describing how to process the relative URI's
15:57:29 [Valentina]
Ginny: can the consumer use the base uri defined for every IF document ?
15:57:34 [Kumar]
Kumar has joined #sml
15:57:42 [Valentina]
Sandy: yes, but only when this information is available
15:58:54 [Valentina]
Pratul: using base uri for every document is not seen as a requirement; the producer may choose to use it, if necessary
16:00:04 [Valentina]
Pratul: if relative uri's are used in documents, the producer we may probably want to use base uri to define the base in IF
16:00:21 [Valentina]
s/the producer we may probably/the producer may probably
16:01:46 [Valentina]
Kumar: if the producer doesn't understand what is producing how can we assume that the consumer should understand this information?
16:02:17 [Valentina]
Kumar: can we summarize what we found before we move to the next topic ?
16:03:12 [Valentina]
John: we need first to understand if we have consenus on what we discussed as valid and supported scenarios
16:03:36 [Valentina]
Kumar: will try summarize the discussion..
16:04:23 [Valentina]
Kumar: one issue was that fragment only identifiers should not be fixed by applying absolute URI
16:04:38 [Valentina]
16:05:30 [Valentina]
Pratul: second issue : the value of the uri base in IF should be an absolute URI and only one base URI should be defined in an IF document
16:08:15 [Valentina]
Pratul: how to preserve absolute URI when documents are packaged in IF , when the producer doesn't understand the URI?
16:09:36 [Valentina]
Kumar: summarizes the issues on the board : 1. relative URI understood by the producer; 2. relative URI not understood by the producer
16:10:34 [Valentina]
Kumar: question : should the producer fix relative URI's for the case the producer understand them ?
16:11:18 [Valentina]
Ginny: expectation that producers will produce content they don't understand
16:12:22 [Valentina]
Kumar: question : should the producer understand all the information in the IF document ?
16:14:05 [Valentina]
Kumar: notes that implicit notion of structure in relative uri is lost when packaged in IF
16:14:24 [Valentina]
Ginnny: what is the next action ?
16:15:03 [johnarwe]
16:15:35 [Valentina]
Action: Kumar toreview 5171 with Sandy and come back with a proposal
16:15:35 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-134 - Toreview 5171 with Sandy and come back with a proposal [on Kumar Pandit - due 2007-10-23].
16:18:43 [Valentina]
rrsagent, generate minutes
16:18:43 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Valentina
16:27:14 [Valentina]
Topic: bug 5177
16:27:31 [Valentina]
Resolution: editorial
16:28:25 [Valentina]
Topic: bug 5181
16:28:58 [Valentina]
Pratul: already discussed, make it dependent on 5171
16:29:12 [Valentina]
Ginny: already depends on 5878, which is already resolved
16:29:35 [Valentina]
Sandy: Ithink 5171 should be dependent on this one and not the other way around
16:29:47 [Valentina]
Kumar: sure, let's do it as Sandy suggests
16:30:42 [Valentina]
Resolution: make 5171 dependent on 5181
16:31:15 [Valentina]
Topic: defect 4636
16:35:31 [pratul]
pratul has joined #sml
16:38:12 [Valentina]
rrsagent, generate minutes
16:38:12 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Valentina
16:38:40 [Jimj]
Jimj has joined #sml
16:39:42 [Valentina]
Pratul: the proposal is to move from XPointer, Kumar proposes an alternate solution
16:44:03 [Valentina]
MSM: this may contradict with the way the web architecture works
16:44:24 [Valentina]
MSM: understands the need for the proposal though
16:46:45 [Valentina]
Pratul: what is the problem with this problem ?
16:48:52 [Valentina]
MSM: I think we'll get comments that we took over the task of defining the URI reference scheme
16:50:09 [Valentina]
s/URI reference scheme/fragment identifier scheme
16:54:11 [Valentina]
MSM: suggest taking the task of asking for XPath 1.0 scheme become a recomendation
16:55:15 [Valentina]
MSM: if we don't want to use XPointer scheme because is not a rec, it's less work if we try to make this a scheme rather than try to use something else
16:56:08 [Valentina]
Pratul: we can define our own scheme in the context of the SML spec; faster than to wait for somebody else to make something a rec
16:57:29 [Valentina]
MSM; polite to communicate with the XPath language group and tell them we need this and ask them if they plan for having this as a rec; if not, we plan to address this within our group
16:58:24 [Valentina]
Kumar: wonder why this has not been a rec yet and why we can succeed on this in a faster manner?
16:59:16 [Valentina]
MSM: probably nobody needed our level of standardization
17:00:31 [Valentina]
MSM: we should ask other group to ake this a rec; if not we can make it part of our spec but probably part of a different document so that it can be reused
17:00:43 [Valentina]
17:01:18 [Valentina]
Pratul: nervous that this means slipping our own dates
17:01:57 [Valentina]
Pratul: this is also not part of our charter
17:02:22 [Valentina]
MSM: seems that how to deal with fragment identifier is part of our spec though
17:03:18 [Valentina]
Kumar: a different document may pose a risk to our current dates, we are close to the LC milestone
17:04:10 [Valentina]
John: for the record, Paul Groso is okay with us using XPath 1.1 scheme
17:04:17 [Valentina]
17:05:02 [Valentina]
Ginny: we can define a scheme for XPointer in our own spec - one option
17:05:38 [Valentina]
John: wonders which of the propose approaches is more likely to go smoothly
17:05:51 [Valentina]
17:08:29 [Valentina]
Pratul: as a compromise we can use the XPath 1.0 scheme and then have an action to follow up with the wrc group to test if this may be an issue; if an issue, we can incorporate this in our scheme
17:09:37 [pratul]
One correction - we use the registered xpath1() scheme
17:09:38 [MSM]
MSM has joined #sml
17:10:35 [Valentina]
rrsagent, generate minutes
17:10:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Valentina
17:12:29 [Valentina]
s/XPath 1.0 scheme/xpath1() scheme/G
17:12:46 [Valentina]
rrsagent, generate minutes
17:12:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Valentina
17:14:09 [Valentina]
17:19:10 [Valentina]
Kumar: propose to define our own xpath1() scheme, choose a name for it and add it as a part of our spec
17:21:03 [Valentina]
Ginny: we should also register this scheme
17:22:03 [Valentina]
John: wonders what is the process for registering a scheme
17:24:27 [Valentina]
Kumar: asks MSM if he is aware of the FixPointer activity and how this relates to the XPointer scheme since the FixPointer group were originally part of the XPointer group
17:26:44 [Valentina]
MSM: irreconcilable differences between people who wanted reach support for references resulted in this new activity
17:28:24 [Valentina]
MSM: FixPointer is not actively proposed by anyone
17:29:58 [Valentina]
Pratul: for this bug we have two options; 1. define our own scheme; 2. use xpath1() scheme
17:30:22 [Valentina]
Pratul: Kumar is not comfortable with option2; he proposes option 1
17:32:38 [Valentina]
John: we need to review the scheme registration process so that we know what can be done in terms of updating existing schemes so that we don't end up with issues
17:33:00 [Valentina]
Kumar: agrees to review this process; due diligence on the procces
17:35:41 [Valentina]
Resolution: use xpath1() scheme
17:36:58 [Valentina]
Pratul: next question is whether we want to create a profile of the xpath1() scheme and use Kumar's proposal
17:39:08 [Valentina]
Pratul: proposes to close 4636 and comment that the decision is to use xpath1()
17:40:32 [Valentina]
Kumar: options 1. use xpath1() as is, 2. profile xpath2() 3. define our own scheme
17:43:29 [pratul]
2 should be "profile xpath2()"
17:43:51 [Valentina]
Pratul: to summarize proposed approach: use xpath1() scheme and communicate with the wrc team to see if there are any issues with this approach; if any issues are identified then we go with defining our own scheme
17:44:30 [Valentina]
s/2. profile xpath2()/2. profile xpath1()
17:51:36 [Valentina]
Action: Kumar to investigate if there any implemetation issues with supporting xpath1() scheme
17:51:36 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-135 - Investigate if there any implemetation issues with supporting xpath1() scheme [on Kumar Pandit - due 2007-10-23].
17:52:28 [Valentina]
Resolution: get back to this defect after Kumar and Pratul/John/MSM investigates issues with the proposed xpath1() scheme usage
17:52:53 [Valentina]
Topic: bug 4639
17:53:52 [Valentina]
Ginny: there is a document posted with the latest proposal
17:54:21 [Valentina]
latest proposal
17:54:22 [johnarwe]
17:56:44 [Valentina]
Ginny: the proposal is to speify that cycles are defined on elements; suggestion is to replace the existing document cycle as described in the spec
17:57:07 [Valentina]
17:59:26 [Valentina]
Ginny: acyclic can be specified on any complex type
17:59:42 [Valentina]
Ginny: area nnotations inherited ?
17:59:50 [Valentina]
MSM: no, they are not
18:00:04 [Valentina]
s/area nnotations/are annotations
18:00:30 [Valentina]
MSM: only attributes and content model are inherited
18:01:38 [Valentina]
MSM: a way to make an annotation inherited, is to somehow add it to an attribute
18:04:04 [Valentina]
Ginny: an element can have more children which are ref; this definition allow to define acyclic on specific child
18:14:54 [Valentina]
Ginny: use sml:acyclic ref attribute to describe the elements on which elements acyclic should be enforced
18:16:57 [Valentina]
s/to describe the elements on which elements/to describe the elements on which
18:19:34 [Valentina]
Sandy: comments that acyclic can be inherited by making this a requirement in the SML spec; this is how we deal now with other SML inherited properties, sml:key
18:28:58 [Valentina]
Sandy: the proposal is to make the acyclic properties inherited - should be applied on that type or inherited types
18:30:08 [zeckert]
zeckert has joined #sml
18:37:44 [Valentina]
Jim: can this be implemented using schematron rules ?
18:38:24 [Valentina]
MSM: only if you use XPath 2.0 and define recursive function to keep deref'ing the references
18:38:43 [Valentina]
s/define recursive function/define a recursive function
18:41:09 [Valentina]
Kumar: what if the acyclic is defined on the child instead of the parent and define acylic any graph getting back to that element or the parent of that element
18:41:31 [Valentina]
s/acylic any graph/cylic any graph
18:41:49 [Valentina]
18:44:20 [Valentina]
Sandy: it may not be necessarily on any ancestor
18:45:17 [Valentina]
Valentina has joined #SML
18:45:26 [Valentina]
rrsagent, generate minutes
18:45:26 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Valentina
19:04:48 [pratul]
pratul has joined #sml
19:20:38 [Valentina]
The discussion is around two options on how to define acyclic ; 1. define it at the ancestor level, which bounds it with a note type 2. define it at the reference level
19:21:03 [Valentina]
the current proposal ( posted on the bug ) refers to option 1
19:21:49 [Valentina]
sample for option 2 below
19:21:59 [Valentina]
<CT 'nodeType'>
19:22:01 [Valentina]
19:22:24 [Valentina]
<e n="left" sml:acyclic="./left"/>
19:22:46 [Valentina]
<e n="right" sml:acyclic="./right"/>
19:22:59 [Valentina]
19:23:07 [Valentina]
19:23:31 [Valentina]
s/sample for option 2 below/sample for option 2:
19:23:40 [Valentina]
sample for option 1:
19:23:46 [Valentina]
<CT nodeType>
19:23:58 [Valentina]
19:24:23 [Valentina]
<sml:acyclic ref="./left"/>
19:24:37 [Valentina]
<sml:acyclic ref="./right"/>
19:24:44 [Valentina]
19:24:58 [Valentina]
19:25:25 [Valentina]
<e n="value"/>
19:25:40 [Valentina]
<e n="left"../>
19:25:51 [Valentina]
<e n="right"../>
19:25:57 [Valentina]
19:26:03 [Valentina]
19:26:22 [Valentina]
19:26:33 [Valentina]
19:26:40 [Valentina]
rrsagent, generate minutes
19:26:40 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Valentina
19:27:52 [Valentina]
19:28:01 [Valentina]
rrsagent, generate minutes
19:28:01 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Valentina
19:29:36 [Valentina]
Pratul: propose to resume the discussion at a later time
19:30:56 [Valentina]
Jim: should we try to understand what options, 1 or 2, are considered at this time ?
19:32:33 [Valentina]
s/which bounds it with a note type/which bounds it with a node type
19:33:19 [Valentina]
Sandy: option 2 covers the case where the refs don't share the same parent type
19:34:01 [Valentina]
break for lunch
20:00:12 [Valentina]
present: Kumar, MSM, Sandy, Jim, Ginny, Pratul, Valentina, John, Kirk, Marv
20:00:21 [Valentina]
rssagent, generate minutes
20:00:33 [Valentina]
rrsagent, generate minutes
20:00:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Valentina
20:01:35 [Valentina]
present: Kumar, MSM, Sandy, Jim, Ginny, Pratul, Valentina, John, Kirk, Marv, Zulah
20:08:33 [pratul]
pratul has joined #sml
20:08:53 [Valentina]
Resolution: open action item against Ginny to update the proposal based on today's discussions
20:09:27 [Valentina]
Action: Ginny to update acyclic proposal to include the options discussed in the 10/16/07 f2f meeting
20:09:27 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Ginny
20:10:20 [Valentina]
Action: Virginia update acyclic proposal to include the options discussed in the 10/16/07 f2f meeting
20:10:20 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-136 - Update acyclic proposal to include the options discussed in the 10/16/07 f2f meeting [on Virginia Smith - due 2007-10-23].
20:11:18 [Jim]
20:11:29 [Jimj]
Jimj has joined #sml
20:11:38 [Valentina]
Topic: bug 4684 -
20:12:34 [Valentina]
Kirk: thinks there are usecases where we want to access xs:key and unique from sml:keyref
20:12:39 [johnarwe]
johnarwe has joined #sml
20:13:02 [Valentina]
Kirk's proposal :
20:13:28 [Marv]
Marv has joined #sml
20:14:01 [Valentina]
Kirk: investigated what needs to be added to the SML spec in order to allow such usecases
20:14:52 [Valentina]
Kirk decsribes the proposal
20:16:16 [Valentina]
Kirk to describe the proposal using a sample - on the board
20:17:47 [Valentina]
Kirk: Kumar raised issues with overlapping symbol spaces for key and keyrefs between xsd and SML
20:19:10 [Valentina]
Kirk: bug 5130 addresses the 'clarify the extent of SML constraint symbol space '
20:20:04 [Valentina]
s/addresses the/addresses constraint symbol space:
20:21:38 [zeckert]
zeckert has joined #sml
20:22:32 [Valentina]
<sml:keyref name="CoursesStudent" refer="xxx:StudentIDisKey" scope="tns:students">
20:22:49 [Valentina]
<sml:selector xpath="course/student"/>
20:22:58 [Valentina]
<sml:field xpath="ID"/>
20:23:06 [Valentina]
20:24:24 [Valentina]
Kirk: scope="tns:students" is the element in the current complex type where SML reference to Students is defined
20:24:56 [Valentina]
Kirk: name=".." and refer=".." is standard
20:25:51 [Valentina]
Pratul: asks for group opinion on this proposal
20:27:37 [Valentina]
John: is key and keyref actually used in existing documents ?
20:27:41 [Valentina]
MSMS: there are a large collection of schemas over the net using key and keyref
20:27:54 [Valentina]
20:28:36 [Valentina]
s/there are/there is
20:29:26 [Valentina]
Kumar: thisnks that the underlying need is to refer to existing data; you should not be required to update that data in order to make this happen
20:30:16 [Valentina]
Kumar: agree with the motivation but feels that schema already provides this by using xs key and unique
20:31:02 [Valentina]
Kumar: I think the initial intent was to have sml:key and sml:keyref defined as close as possible to the xsd counterparts; feels that this proposal moves away from the original intent
20:35:05 [Valentina]
MSM: thinks that the arguments in favor is that offers clarity and simplicity; cons: overlapping symbol spaces, SML implementations will require to understand xsd key and keyref
20:37:43 [Valentina]
Kirk: with the current spec content, sml keyref cannot use existing keys if defined using xml schema
20:38:53 [Valentina]
Sandy: no strong opinion; feels like something nice to have and with no other consequences, simple to define and implement
20:40:46 [Valentina]
Resolution: xml schema key and unique should be separated from the SML key; make this more explicit in the SML spec
20:41:34 [Valentina]
5130 should be fixed
20:41:58 [Valentina]
s/5130 should be fixed/5130 will be looked at later
20:42:53 [Valentina]
Sandy: 4115 seems related to this and is covered by the current bug discussion
20:43:26 [Valentina]
Pratul: let's look at 4995 later
20:44:15 [Valentina]
Topic: bug 4977
20:44:51 [Valentina]
Ginny: the spec defines schematron query binding attribute to be some value that is not even defined in the schematron spec
20:45:08 [Valentina]
Ginny: is it a good reason to restrict this query binding ?
20:46:35 [Valentina]
Pratul: proposes to go with the schematron default query binding which is xslt; this should be the floor
20:47:45 [Valentina]
Pratul: this statement should go in SML, not SMLIF
20:50:03 [Valentina]
Resolution: consensus to fix it as mentioned above
20:50:36 [Valentina]
Topic: bug 5130
20:51:29 [Marv]
Marv has joined #sml
20:54:48 [Valentina]
Kumar: for a given target namespace you can't have two constraints with the same name
20:55:37 [Valentina]
MSM: trying to understand what this means in conflicting schemas scenario
20:55:40 [Jim2]
Jim2 has joined #sml
20:56:03 [Valentina]
MSM: I can't have these constrainst and result in a valid model
20:56:22 [Valentina]
s/constrainst/constrainsts with the same name
20:59:00 [Valentina]
Kumar: but we are going to handling the conflicting case in a separate proposal
20:59:19 [Valentina]
s/to handling/to handle
21:00:38 [Valentina]
Resolution: consensus on proposal, update to editorial
21:01:11 [Valentina]
Topic: bug 4637
21:01:36 [ginny]
ginny has joined #sml
21:01:37 [Valentina]
Kirk: requires to talk about this tomorrow as there is an ongoing off line discussion that may clarify this
21:02:19 [Valentina]
Topic: bug 4638
21:02:57 [Valentina]
Ginny: conformance section added to the IF document; want to have something similar in the SML spec
21:03:26 [Valentina]
Ginny: something has been added to the SML spec but there are some changes reuiqred based on feedback
21:04:22 [Valentina]
Ginny: the document is still changing; want to wait on this section until the document content is more stable
21:04:39 [Valentina]
Resolution: agreement to wait on this
21:04:52 [Valentina]
Topic: bug 4643
21:06:26 [Valentina]
Kumar: doesn't understand the original comments
21:06:39 [Valentina]
MSM: tries to remember what he meant
21:08:05 [Valentina]
Sandy: comment 1 says that the quoted text is incorrect
21:11:05 [Jim]
Jim has joined #sml
21:21:59 [zeckert]
zeckert has joined #sml
21:21:59 [MSM]
Proposal: as suggested by comment #2 on 4643, send communication to XML Schema suggesting that they may wish to impose constraints analogous to those of SML, in the interests of (a) alignment and (b) doing the right thing
21:22:24 [Valentina]
ACTION: Pratul write a proposal to to XML Schema group to address the issue decsribed in 4643
21:22:24 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-137 - Write a proposal to to XML Schema group to address the issue decsribed in 4643 [on Pratul Dublish - due 2007-10-23].
21:23:08 [Jim]
Jim has joined #sml
21:23:09 [Valentina]
Pratul: resolve this wontfix or works for me
21:23:33 [Valentina]
John: suggest to mark it wontfix
21:33:37 [Valentina]
Ginny: 4643 blocks 5063
21:35:11 [Valentina]
Topic: Topic: bug
21:36:15 [Valentina]
Pratul: mark this as editorial as it's covered by Sandy's reference proposal
21:37:11 [Valentina]
Topic: bug
21:38:24 [Valentina]
Pratul: we had a similar discussion yesterday about what producers and consumers should be required
21:38:46 [Valentina]
Ginny: not sure if we agreed on something
21:38:53 [Marv]
Marv has joined #sml
21:40:06 [Valentina]
Pratul: we agreed that consumers MUST support uri scheme; producers are not required to support it
21:46:59 [Valentina]
rrsagent, generate minutes
21:46:59 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Valentina
21:50:42 [Valentina]
Ginny: we talked about this yesterday, related to bug 5121 but I don't think we reached agreement
21:51:23 [Valentina]
Ginny: assumed that IF constraints both consumers and producers to support uri scheme
21:51:36 [Valentina]
Ginny: would like to see this unchanged
21:52:32 [Valentina]
MSM: is the requirement on a producer to support the uri scheme a testable requirement ?
21:52:43 [Valentina]
Pratul: thinks it is
21:53:52 [Valentina]
Pratul: the test would be that a consumer that understand only sml:uri can take a document and understand it; the doc can go through a round trip exchange and give the same results
21:57:42 [Valentina]
Ginny: a level 1 conformant producers supports all IF scheme minus smo uri
21:58:00 [Valentina]
Ginny: level 2 consumers will also support sml uri scheme
21:58:25 [Valentina]
s/level 1 conformant producers/level 1 conformant producer
21:58:56 [Valentina]
s/minus smo uri/minus sml uri scheme
22:04:26 [Valentina]
Pratul: why do we need these 2 levels ?
22:05:04 [Valentina]
Ginny: so that consumers that understand different schemes can claim conformance at some level
22:07:11 [Valentina]
MSM: thinks is useful to use terms for documents to define level of conformance
22:12:00 [Valentina]
Resolution: both consumers and producers are required to support sml uri scheme; a producer should be able to produce IF using sml uri scheme; define 2 levels of conformance for the IF documents; mark the defect editorial
22:13:38 [Valentina]
Topic: bug
22:13:56 [Valentina]
Pratul: this seems to be done, covered by Sandy's reference proposal
22:14:07 [Valentina]
MSM: what is the answer here ? 0 or more ?
22:14:35 [Valentina]
Sandy: the answer is 0 or 1
22:19:32 [Valentina]
Resolution: mark this editorial, covered by the ref proposal
22:25:45 [Valentina]
rrsagent, generate minutes
22:25:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Valentina
22:34:18 [Valentina]
Topic: bug
22:35:04 [Valentina]
Kirk: why are we talking about DTD's ?
22:35:22 [Valentina]
MSM: this is DTD's for documents in the model we may want to inline
22:36:09 [Valentina]
Kirk: but there is some statement, could not find now, that states XML Schema is the schema to use
22:37:27 [Valentina]
MSM: possibility that somebody chooses to use entity references for special characters, there is nothing to prevent you using a DTD defining the definition and XML Schema for the language
22:37:39 [Valentina]
s/defining the definition/defining it
22:38:18 [Valentina]
MSM: another posibility is that some people really want to use DTD and not XML Schema ( old documents, etc )
22:39:25 [Valentina]
MSM: to draft something as a proposal
22:43:02 [Valentina]
Topic: bug
22:44:20 [Valentina]
Ginny: this defect is dependent on 4978
22:44:52 [Valentina]
Ginny: propose to mark this dependant to 4978
22:45:10 [Valentina]
MSM: remarks that it refers to a section that doesn't exist anymore
22:45:29 [Valentina]
Ginny: I think it moved under section 6
22:45:49 [Valentina]
Sandy: it is 6.1.4
22:46:11 [Valentina]
Pratul: looks like a MUST
22:47:41 [Valentina]
Resolution: resolve this to MUST and refer to whether to keep err in 4978; mark edittorial
22:48:03 [Valentina]
Topic: bug
22:50:38 [Valentina]
MSM: this is the one reported by MSM
22:51:17 [Valentina]
MSM: does not recall the details
22:52:37 [Valentina]
Sandy: feels that this is redundant
22:54:34 [Valentina]
Resolution: completely remove this section
22:54:51 [Valentina]
Resolution: remove bullet number 3 only
23:00:46 [Valentina]
in addition, a similar section should go under the conformance criteria; on the sentence before the bullet change ref from 3.2.2 to 3.2
23:01:47 [Valentina]
Topic: bug
23:02:26 [ginny]
s/3.2.2 to 3.2/3.11.2 to 3.11/
23:02:51 [Valentina]
Pratul: we agreed to make the change in IF so that a new scheme is or not an IF scheme
23:03:34 [Valentina]
s/new scheme is or/new scheme defines if it is or
23:09:18 [Valentina]
Resolution: remove last sentence
23:10:24 [Valentina]
move second sentence of the third paragraph to the addresing scheme definition
23:11:10 [Valentina]
reword first sentence to say it is not an IF scheme because of the scheme's definition
23:11:25 [johnarwe]
last sentence (of 3.4.2, to be removed) is: SML-IF Consumers MUST NOT interpret wsa:address content as inter-document references.
23:13:27 [johnarwe]
sandy: do we need to deal with sml:uri for similar reasons in "SML-IF Consumers MUST interpret xsi:schemaLocation hints and sml:uri content used as SML reference schemes as inter-document references."
23:14:39 [Sandy]
Sandy has joined #sml
23:14:57 [johnarwe]
proposal: remove "and sml:uri content used as SML reference schemes "
23:15:51 [ginny]
ginny has joined #sml
23:16:33 [Jim2]
Jim2 has joined #sml
23:18:29 [johnarwe]
resolution: consensus on proposed
23:18:52 [Val]
Val has joined #sml
23:19:46 [Valenatina]
rrsagent, generate minutes
23:19:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Valenatina
23:20:22 [johnarwe]
MSM raises 2 related questions
23:20:58 [johnarwe]
1. should we have said xsi:schemaLocation, since the xsi says instances only not xsds
23:21:35 [johnarwe]
2. do we need or want to distinguish between schemalocation in instances vs xsds
23:24:33 [johnarwe]
update 4774 to handle #2 above
23:29:38 [Val]
23:29:49 [Val]
Topic: bug
23:30:42 [Valentina]
Sandy: propose to mark this as a dup of 5117
23:31:35 [Valentina]
Resolution: agreed to close as dup of 5117
23:31:45 [Valentina]
Topic: bug
23:32:21 [Valentina]
Pratul: I think this is done, covered by Sandy's ref proposal
23:32:40 [Valentina]
Resolution: mark editorial, fix as per Sandy's proposal
23:33:03 [Valentina]
ref proposal
23:33:28 [Valentina]
Topic: bug
23:33:36 [Valentina]
Pratul: looks done
23:33:41 [zeckert]
zeckert has joined #sml
23:34:31 [Valentina]
Kumar: so this should be dup of 4616
23:35:25 [Valentina]
John: 4616 is not the right nb, is 4636
23:35:44 [Valentina]
Resolution: dup of 4636
23:36:10 [Valentina]
Topic: bug
23:37:51 [Valentina]
Jim: do we try to agree on object identity when using different schemes ?
23:38:06 [Valentina]
Sandy: another case is when you have one scheme but multiple targets
23:38:34 [Valentina]
Ginny: so when you get back 3 things you need to check if they represent the same object
23:38:56 [Valentina]
Sandy: this is not about deref, it's about object validation
23:43:33 [Valentina]
MSM: XPath can tell you the identity of object references but only it guarantees that it refers to the same document
23:44:18 [Valentina]
s/it guarantees that/if
23:46:43 [Valentina]
MSM: need a way to identify that schemes are refering to the same document
23:48:21 [Valentina]
MSM: proposes to say that if two URI's are equal based on rfc spec, then they refer to the same document
23:48:51 [Valentina]
John: proposes to use document aliases as part of the equality test
23:50:04 [Valentina]
Jim: is the intend to say that if you are a conforming consumer than you have to be able to decide if two URI's are the same ?
23:50:40 [Valentina]
MSM: no; we say that two expressions can evaluate to the same thing
23:51:00 [Valentina]
MSM: for documents we have the same story using URI
23:51:43 [Valentina]
MSM: for elements, we first establish they are in the same document; after that establish that the two XPath expressions evaluate to the same element
23:52:39 [Valentina]
Jim: how do we test for compliant consumers based on these equivalence definitions ?
23:58:27 [Valentina]
MSM: we need to specify when you are required to know two documents are the same