21:01:26 RRSAgent has joined #sml 21:01:26 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/12/10-sml-irc 21:01:31 zakim, who's here? 21:01:32 sorry, johnarwe, I don't know what conference this is 21:01:33 On IRC I see RRSAgent, johnarwe, pratul, Valentina, Kirk, Sandy, Zakim, ginny, Jim, MSM, trackbot-ng 21:01:40 meeting: W3C SML Teleconference of 2007-12-10 21:01:40 zakim, this is sml 21:01:40 ok, johnarwe; that matches XML_SMLWG()4:00PM 21:01:41 scribe: Virginia Smith 21:01:43 scribenick: ginny 21:01:45 chair: Pratul 21:01:46 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Dec/0085.html 21:01:48 regrets: Jordan 21:02:00 zakim, who's here? 21:02:00 On the phone I see Ed_Rice, Jim, ??P9, Kirk, +1.905.413.aaaa, [Microsoft] 21:02:02 On IRC I see RRSAgent, johnarwe, pratul, Valentina, Kirk, Sandy, Zakim, ginny, Jim, MSM, trackbot-ng 21:02:05 Agenda at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Dec/0085.html 21:02:15 zakim, ??P9 is me 21:02:15 +johnarwe; got it 21:02:31 zakim, aaaa is me 21:02:31 +Valentina; got it 21:02:43 zakim, Ed_Rice is me 21:02:43 +ginny; got it 21:03:59 zakim, please call MSM-Office 21:03:59 ok, MSM; the call is being made 21:04:01 +MSM 21:04:14 +Zulah_Eckert 21:04:59 +[Microsoft.a] 21:05:55 zulah has joined #sml 21:06:36 zakim, [Microsoft.a] is Kumar 21:06:36 +Kumar; got it 21:09:04 Kumar has joined #sml 21:13:50 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5305 21:14:05 Jim has joined #sml 21:14:05 Pratul: charter does not allow for a note from WG 21:14:25 Zulah: we voted on this in the last meeting 21:14:51 MSM: disagrees with Pratul interpretation of charter 21:15:40 Kumar: will a non-normative appendix affect LC? 21:16:22 Kumar: is there a degree of non-normative in text? 21:19:42 Kirk: if appendix is a note or appendix, we can make normative statements such as EPR scheme MUST be done this way if you are doing a EPR scheme 21:19:59 MSM: problematic in a Note or appendix 21:20:39 q+ 21:21:22 Pratul: advice from W3c member was that our charter allows a note to be created for EPR scheme 21:21:44 s/member/staff contact/ 21:23:18 John: non-normative appendix or note should work the same way 21:23:34 [I apologize if my remarks on last week's call were not wholly clear. From a process point of view, changes to a non-normative appendix can be made after the spec goes to Last Call, without requiring that the document be issued in a new Last Call. I believe I said that clearly last week. 21:24:57 In addition, I expressed the view that I think doing it as a Note is more convenient. As an individual member of the WG, I think it's not good practice to issue a Last Call that has material we believe to be unfinished, incomplete, or wrong. That's a general question of good WG practice, though, not a question of the W3C process.] 21:28:03 [To answer Kumar's question about the amount of work involved: if the material is the same, presumably the editorial work involved in making it correct is the same, whether the material is included in a non-normative appendix or is used to make up a Note.] 21:34:57 q+ 21:38:34 Kumar: objection is not to the note but to the precedent 21:39:33 Pratul: does anyone disagree with marking the bug as editorial to create the note 21:41:47 Resolution: Kirk agrees to create the note and we are marking as resolved/fixed 21:42:02 s/marking/marking the bug/ 21:44:29 Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5063 21:44:47 ginny: is this proposal aligned with schema (mentioned in comment #5) 21:46:03 Kumar: not in inheritance of particle restriction 21:47:09 MSM: is problematic; simpler to say schema author should manually specify the constraint 21:48:32 MSM: logically consistent but cost may be high 21:49:34 Kumar: this bug covers cases not covered in the spec. 21:52:22 In XSDL, nillability and default values on local elements in a restriction are not constrained to agree with those for corresponding elements local to the base type. 21:52:37 In XSDL, there ARE constraints for the type assigned to the elements. 21:53:03 I think that SML would be simpler and thus easier to understand if we made targetType behave the way nillability does. 21:54:58 zulah: doing nothing is not an option here 21:55:14 There is additional complexity needed to cover the cases not covered successfully in the current draft; I think it illustrates that the cost/benefit ratio for this constraint is not a good one. 21:55:41 If I am alone in feeling this way, I will accede to the will of the group. (I won't "lie down in the road" over it.) 21:59:22 Valentina: has use cases for this; wants to keep it. 22:03:41 -[Microsoft] 22:03:43 -Kumar 22:03:43 -Valentina 22:03:44 -Kirk 22:03:44 -Jim 22:03:46 -Zulah_Eckert 22:03:48 Jim has left #sml 22:03:51 -MSM 22:03:53 -johnarwe 22:04:00 MSM I am doing that ( review with Sandy ) 22:04:23 zakim, list attendees 22:04:23 As of this point the attendees have been Jim, Kirk, +1.905.413.aaaa, [Microsoft], johnarwe, Valentina, ginny, MSM, Zulah_Eckert, Kumar 22:04:23 A comment about my objection to adding EPR as a Note: 22:04:23 We discussed this issue in depth. My objection to the note was based on the fear that our creating a W3C note will set a precedent. This precedent could be used to add more things (as notes or otherwise) later on. Michael clarified that since EPR was there in the member submission and since it exists in the editor's copy today, converting it to a note is not really adding anything new and thus does not add a precedent. If that is true, 22:04:23 I do not have objection to creating an EPR note. 22:04:24 rrsagent, generate minutes 22:04:24 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/12/10-sml-minutes.html ginny 22:04:26 rrsagent, make log public 22:05:12 rrsagent, generate minutes 22:05:12 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/12/10-sml-minutes.html ginny 22:05:37 -ginny 22:05:39 XML_SMLWG()4:00PM has ended 22:05:40 Attendees were Jim, Kirk, +1.905.413.aaaa, [Microsoft], johnarwe, Valentina, ginny, MSM, Zulah_Eckert, Kumar 22:28:06 johnarwe has left #sml