19:01:29 RRSAgent has joined #sml 19:01:29 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/12/06-sml-irc 19:01:36 zakim, this is sml 19:01:36 ok, MSM; that matches XML_SMLWG()2:00PM 19:01:38 +Kirk 19:01:55 zakim, what's the code? 19:01:55 the conference code is 76594 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MSM 19:01:58 +Valentina 19:02:16 +[MIT342] 19:02:18 Valentina has joined #sml 19:02:23 zakim, [MIT342] is me 19:02:23 +MSM; got it 19:02:42 Kirk has joined #sml 19:03:26 meeting: W3C SML Teleconference of 2007-12-6 19:03:28 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Dec/0051.html 19:03:31 Zakim, who's here/ 19:03:31 I don't understand 'who's here/', MSM 19:03:36 Zakim, who's here? 19:03:36 On the phone I see +1.610.277.aaaa, ginny, [Microsoft], Kirk, Valentina, MSM 19:03:38 On IRC I see Kirk, Valentina, RRSAgent, pratul, Jim, Sandy, Zakim, ginny, johnarwe, MSM, Kumar```, trackbot-ng 19:03:40 +Zulah_Eckert 19:03:41 +Sandy 19:03:50 +johnarwe 19:04:13 Zulah has joined #sml 19:04:32 Zakim, Microsoft is me 19:04:32 +pratul; got it 19:06:45 zakim, aaaa is Jim 19:06:45 +Jim; got it 19:07:01 Scribe: Zulah 19:07:49 ScribeNick:Zulah 19:08:18 ScribeNick: Zulah 19:08:20 RRSAgent, make minutes 19:08:20 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/12/06-sml-minutes.html MSM 19:09:14 RRSAgent, make records world-visible 19:09:26 Meeting: SML 19:09:45 chair: John_Arwe 19:09:46 Chair: John Arwe 19:10:22 Topic: Action Items 19:11:32 topic: Review bugs with no keywords or target 19:12:13 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5303 19:12:18 thanks 19:14:19 johnarwe: will update but to hadproposal 19:14:35 s/but/bug/ 19:15:04 zulah: would like more time to read the bug 19:15:16 pratul: requests that we close the bug on email 19:15:28 +[Microsoft] 19:16:41 My comment on the bug is: 19:16:42 (Slightly pedantic editorial note:) 19:16:42 For readers who think in terms of either the XML grammar or in terms of the 19:16:42 XPath and XDM data models, the phrase 'the name sml:uri' can be misinterpreted 19:16:42 as constraining just the prefix and local name, not the namespace and local 19:16:45 name. I support the change, but suggest that the editors find some other phrasing 19:16:47 to make clear that what we care about is the expanded name of the element, not 19:16:50 its prefix. 19:18:33 topic: Review and attempt to reach consensus on other non-editorial "hasProposal" bugs 19:19:00 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4687 19:19:32 ginny: this should be needsagreement and the new proposal is listed in comment #14 from Sandy 19:20:21 Kumar: schema bug is #5301 19:26:00 resolutions: move #4687 to editorial and make changes listed in comment #14 of 4687 19:26:21 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4644 19:37:13 Kumar: should we have restrictions on a derived type such that it has alteast the restrictions of the base type 19:38:07 Kumar has joined #sml 19:45:10 Proposal: we use the term "restriction invariant" for the proposition: it's not legal for an instance valid against a restriction to be invalid against the base type. 19:45:43 +Kirk.a 19:53:56 resolution: Sandy and MSM will type some appropriate words into IRC and then we will agree on them 19:55:09 Proposal: 1 retain the existing rule allowing assertions only on global elements. 2 make an explicit rule that the restriction invariant must hold w.r.t. schematron assertions (as well as target* etc). 3 optionally observe that this means that a complex type R restricting a complex type B cannot replace a reference to a global element E in B with a local element E in R, if the global E has assertions. 19:57:31 1. assertions can only be specified on global element declaraions 19:57:31 2. assertions can only be specified on global complex type definitions 19:57:31 3. assertions can be available on anonymous complex type (only via derivation/inheritance) 19:57:31 4. assertions must satisfy complex type restriction rules (similar to target* constraints) 19:57:31 5. if complex type T2 restricts complex type T1; T1 contains a reference to global element E with assertions; T2 contains a local E without assertions. This will be a restriction error. 19:57:33 6. if compelx type T2 restricts complex type T1 and T1 has assertions, then those assertions are unioned with any other assertions specified on T2, if any. 19:58:18 addendum: when complex type B has assertions, they are automatically copied to / inherited by any restriction R of B, and unioned with the assertions specified on the declaration for R. 19:59:21 johnarwe: does anyone have an issue with taking the text here in IRC and then marking the bug editorial? 19:59:56 resolution: #4644 will be marked editorial, the bug will be updated with the text 20:00:43 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4675 20:02:04 Same process as 4644. We will float a verbal proposal and then write that up. 20:03:31 [highest level of guaranteed interop should be (1) uri scheme used, (2) no location remote docs, and (3) whatever the third items was -- not just (1), I think?] 20:03:45 s/location/locator required for/ 20:04:02 ginny: (1) remove level 1 and 2 naming in favor of more descriptive naming, (2) identity of reference scheme is identified with "must understand" sematics 20:04:37 q+ 20:05:28 johnarwe: if you were assuming fully consistent usage of reference schemes in every single reference fine - but if you step away from that you could get tangled up 20:05:35 q+ to suggest must-understand information about the smallest set(s) of reference schemes required to enable a recipient to understand every inter-document reference 20:08:54 Sandy: so the result is that you have a set of sets of what you coul d understand 20:10:12 q- 20:11:38 johnarwe: reasons that an SML-IF consumer could give for not understanding a package: (1) locator (2) schema incomplete (3) understanding reference schemes 20:12:22 Kirk: assumes that there will be a scheme by which each reference scheme is identified 20:12:31 MSM: proposes qnames 20:13:04 Kirk: expresses desire for URIs in this case 20:14:17 Sandy" wants more clarification of changes being made 20:14:38 agreement to make clear conditions under which interop is guaranteed 20:15:15 [I think the idea is to allow an SML-IF package to specify what the conditions for understanding it are, so I can tell by looking at the package whether I will be able to understand it, without having to have out-of-band negotiation between sender and receiver] 20:17:45 ginny: goal is to make it clear in the spec when interoperability is guaranteed and when it is not 20:17:58 pratul: equivalent to using the mandatory portions of the spec 20:18:45 MSM: would like a consumer to be able to tell whether or not a document can be understood. 20:19:07 MSM: would like to see a simple set of keywords added to the transmission that works the way that a must understand header works 20:19:28 Kumar: is this at the beginning of the transmission to describe what will be coming later on? 20:20:12 Kumar: change of inconsistency between what is claimed and what is present. The only way a consumer can know if by processing the model. So it is about making a claim and whether you can trust it. 20:21:37 pratul: proposes a flag that indicate strictly conformant or not 20:24:59 [I think that a Boolean flag provides less information than a list of the schemes required to understand the SML-IF package; I agree that consistency between declaration and package is not automatic] 20:25:33 discussion on why having means to understand reference scheme in document would be useful (there wass discussion of examples wheree it is difficult to identify the reference scheme) 20:26:08 proposal is to write into IRC what the proposal is 20:26:33 ginny: (1) expand the discussion of interopability in the sepcification 20:26:58 ginny: (2) include a "must understand" for conformance 20:30:03 Kumar: spec says that a consumer can only process the schemes that it understands 20:30:12 If we don't have a way to indicate what the requirements are for understanding an SML-IF package, then every package that's outside the narrowest compatibility group will require human to human negotiation between sender and receiver. 20:33:58 discussion about whether or not you could trust a "must understand" style designation 20:44:35 [If we wish to make it possible to send conforming SML-IF packages that do not provide URI-scheme representations for all inter-document references, then I believe it would be useful to provide a sort of must--understand mechanism to allow / require an SML-IF package to indicate which reference schemes are actually in use (and possibly also declare the other relevant properties, like schema-completeness and use of locators).] 20:45:07 proposal to split the discussion into (1) text about levels of conformance and (2) syntax for capturing reference scheme being used 20:45:38 Zulah, Kirk, and MSM didn't object but leveled concern about ability to separate issue 20:45:52 johnarwe: proposal carries 20:46:16 discussion is on text for interoperability 20:46:43 proposal is now to (1) change the text and (2) change the names for level 1 and level 2 to be more descriptive 20:47:59 ginny: concerned about separating issues. Expressed concern about conformance characterization. 20:48:24 resolution: ginny will have proposed text and names by the end of the day 20:48:55 [which bugs did John name?] 20:49:17 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4637 20:51:01 http://www.w3.org/TR/#Notes 20:51:59 +1 20:53:26 Kirk: recommendation is to move all of the EPR work as a W3C notes 20:54:27 Valentina: could this me a non-normative appendix 20:54:57 question is whether the non-nonrmative stuff could be worked on after the due date 20:59:07 johnarwe: does anyone object to having Kirk's proposed text in the spec and having be normative (normative in the sense that if you are going to do an EPR scheme here is how you do it) 20:59:13 zulah: object 20:59:33 ginny" object 20:59:57 johnarwe: does anyone object to making the current proposal a separate workgroup note? 21:00:16 no objection 21:00:57 johnarwe: does anyone object to making it a non normative appendix? 21:01:01 zulah: object 21:01:04 ginny; object 21:01:20 johnarwe: we have concensus to have this be a note 21:01:48 resolution: mark bug as editorial to be written up as a work group note 21:03:26 ACTION: MSM to make a new component for the EPR Note, in Bugzilla, once the text is out of the SML and SML IF specs and once there is a draft of the Note. 21:03:26 Created ACTION-154 - Make a new component for the EPR Note, in Bugzilla, once the text is out of the SML and SML IF specs and once there is a draft of the Note. [on Michael Sperberg-McQueen - due 2007-12-13]. 21:03:33 valentina: suggests two bugs, one for the editorial work around the spec and another for the note 21:04:44 resolution: current bug for removal of EPR scheme from spec, and new bug to be opened about the creation of a note 21:05:02 -Sandy 21:05:04 [time check] 21:05:05 johnarwe: takes case of 5106, 5242, and 4637 21:05:14 I need to leave now - bye 21:05:20 -pratul 21:07:53 zakim, list attendees 21:07:53 As of this point the attendees have been +1.610.277.aaaa, ginny, Kirk, Valentina, MSM, Zulah_Eckert, Sandy, johnarwe, pratul, Jim, [Microsoft] 21:08:17 rrsagent, generate minutes 21:08:17 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/12/06-sml-minutes.html Zulah 21:08:31 -MSM 21:08:32 rrsagent, make log public 21:08:33 -[Microsoft] 21:08:33 -johnarwe 21:08:34 -Kirk.a 21:08:35 -Zulah_Eckert 21:08:36 -Valentina 21:08:38 -ginny 21:09:05 Jim has left #sml 21:09:09 -Jim 21:11:40 quit 21:12:16 rrsagent, make minutes public 21:12:16 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', johnarwe. Try /msg RRSAgent help 21:12:48 rrsagent, make log public 21:14:10 disconnecting the lone participant, Kirk, in XML_SMLWG()2:00PM 21:14:12 XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended 21:14:13 Attendees were +1.610.277.aaaa, ginny, Kirk, Valentina, MSM, Zulah_Eckert, Sandy, johnarwe, pratul, Jim, [Microsoft] 21:15:34 johnarwe, I think RRSAgent has already made the records world-readable 22:02:45 johnarwe has left #sml 23:19:36 Zakim has left #sml