14:11:55 RRSAgent has joined #sml 14:11:55 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/01/23-sml-irc 14:12:35 meeting: W3C SML Teleconference of 2008-01-23 14:12:37 scribe: Virginia Smith 14:12:38 scribenick: ginny 14:12:40 chair: John 14:12:54 rrsagent, generate minutes 14:12:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/23-sml-minutes.html ginny 14:12:56 rrsagent, make log public 14:13:02 Sandy has joined #sml 14:13:17 johnarwe has joined #sml 14:13:24 ZULAH has joined #sml 14:14:43 MSM proposal for 5395 schemacomplete wording is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Jan/0098.html 14:16:02 pratul has joined #sml 14:17:48 Topic: schemaComplete 14:19:19 Valentina has joined #sml 14:19:29 MSM proposal for 5395 schemacomplete wording is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Jan/0098.html 14:22:50 John: Version A/B correspond to option 1 from yesterday's discussion, Version C corresponds to option 2 14:23:26 Pratul: no definition of SML-IF model validation is not defined. What is an SMl-IF model and why do we need this term? 14:23:48 s/no definition of// 14:25:01 John: SML-IF model is the SML model represented by the interchange set 14:25:58 Sandy: we agreed to define this new term; you can say a model is embedded in the SML-IF doc 14:26:26 ... we want aliases to participate in the model validation 14:27:43 MSM has joined #sml 14:29:15 Pratul: fine to say that if you are validating a model represented in an IF doc, here are the requirements for that. 14:30:05 Kumar: sml-if model validation is 2 steps: unpacking and then validating 14:31:08 Pratul: just talk about first step. we don't need to talk about validation since this is covered in SML spec 14:31:36 Sandy: can't separate the steps because some of the requirements must be performed during validation 14:36:01 Kumar: SML model validation assumes schema set already constructed so that step can be separate 14:39:07 Action: Pratul to append comment to Bug #5395 concerning the term "SML-IF model validation" 14:39:07 Created ACTION-165 - Append comment to Bug #5395 concerning the term \"SML-IF model validation\" [on Pratul Dublish - due 2008-01-30]. 14:41:26 Ginny: should schema be plural in 5.2.3 proposal? 14:41:27 Sandy: yes 14:43:44 Ginny: should B/C say schema... "MUST CONTAIN" 14:43:46 John: no, these proposals are declarative. The text as is is ok for normative text. 14:43:56 s/CONTAIN/contain/ 14:46:03 MSM said his intent was: 5.2.3 versions A and B were equivalent in semantic intent. A is in the imperative or behavioral style, B is in the declarative style (what is true by definition). Both of them correspond to yesterday's item 1, where the behavior of a conforming SMLIF validating consumer is constrained and NO warrant from the producer is implied. 14:46:15 Zulah: version B is not consistent. 2nd sentence is behavioral. 14:46:17 John: agreed, need to fix this. 14:47:39 Kumar: what about built-in schema? this is outside interchange set 14:47:41 John: MSM said that, since they are built-in, they are not "retrieved from outside" 14:48:23 5.2.3 version C is in the declarative style, and corresponds to yesterday's option 2 (same constraint as yest option 1, AND a warrant from the producer that no "element missing" or "attribute missing" validation constraints would be violated) 14:50:10 Sandy: it should say "schema document" rather than "schema component" in the proposed text. 14:50:54 In the non-normative notes that follow, alternative 1 corresponds to either version A or B and alternative 2 corresponds to version C. I.e., if the wg selects either version A or version B conceptually, then alternative 1 would be selected as well. All of these may need further refinement to match the stated intent and/or editorial changes, MSM did not consider them final text. 14:52:31 John: previous consensus was that we wanted option 1 at a minimum 14:52:33 Kumar: ok with either A/B or C 14:52:34 Sandy: prefer C 14:53:59 s/prefer C/prefer B/ 14:55:27 ginny: why not C? 14:55:29 Sandy: implementation of C requires reference to error codes; may be difficult to get these error codes and some processors will provide this and some not. 14:58:19 Sandy: prefer B over A because it says something about the intent of the producer which is the attraction of C in the first place 14:59:34 John: Proposal is to select A/B not C. Any objections? 14:59:36 No objections heard. 15:01:33 John: Proposal on the table for choosing B over A 15:01:34 Valentina: prefer A; B does not state that "all schemas are included" 15:03:08 Sandy: A says do not go outside, B says, given the resulting schema - nothing came from outside the interchange set 15:04:01 Valentina: what if something is missing when you apply B? 15:04:03 John: ok, then model is valid. B does not state that IF contains everything you need 15:05:01 John: Consider B with Alternative 1 notes 15:09:00 John: Any objections to the statement that B along with Alternative 1 notes expresses our intent? 15:10:51 Valentina: prefer A 15:10:53 Zulah: spec is written like A not B; prefer B but asking editors if this inconsistency is a problem 15:10:54 John: we agreed to review the spec and remove the behavioral statements 15:12:37 John: Proposal B with Alternative 1 plus careful editorial attention 15:12:38 Kirk: I have a reservation until I see editorial work. 15:13:45 No other objections heard. 15:16:29 Attendees: John, Pratul, Kumar, Ginny, Kirk, Sandy, Zulah, Valentina 15:19:53 rrsagent, generate minutes 15:19:53 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/23-sml-minutes.html ginny 15:25:05 Kirk has joined #sml 15:25:32 ACTION: Virginia to open bug on how we should consider Schematron 15:25:32 Created ACTION-166 - Open bug on how we should consider Schematron [on Virginia Smith - due 2008-01-30]. 15:38:28 s/Topic: schemaComplete/Topic: schemaComplete discussion for Bug http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5395/ 15:39:37 davep has joined #sml 15:39:42 Topic: Review of SML with Schema WG 15:45:17 ginny_ has joined #sml 15:45:18 ht has joined #sml 15:48:09 ginny_ has joined #sml 15:48:54 John: Announced that the CG group has committed to Zurich as the site of the June mtg. It is up to us to decide whether we will be going. 15:51:36 Kumar is making a slide presentation 15:52:39 No, I think not, but a pointer to the slides would be nice 15:53:34 noah2 has joined #sml 15:57:55 John: SML does not say anything about conflicting schemas 15:58:52 slide 4 has been changed to address floor and ceiling issues 15:59:17 [slide 5, substantially the same] 16:01:14 Kumar: Schematron is used as is, no extensions. Schema is extended. 16:02:25 John: SML defines rule bindings (for Schematron rules) but does not specify how to do that. SML-IF does specify how to interchange these rule bindings. 16:02:53 ... these bindings can be expressed using wildcards 16:03:58 John: SML primarily defines concepts useful across domains. SML-IF defines concrete syntax for exchanging models 16:05:04 John: original context is system management. Recognition in WG that this can be applied more generally. Haven't formally recorded use cases. 16:07:14 [if we are going to want a bat phone for discussion after the presentation, i can go fetch the bat phone. Are we going to want it?] 16:10:06 [the plan is to register an xpath1() XPointer scheme and use it; fragment identifiers use XPath 1.0 plus deref() function 16:10:56 John: cross document reference 'schemes' can be defined by user; SML defines only 1 - the SML URI scheme 16:11:53 ... how you recognize the scheme is specified in the *definition* of the reference scheme. 16:11:58 HST is happy with http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2007/xml/sml/build/sml.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#SMLXPath1_Scheme 16:12:03 No discussion necessary 16:12:15 MSM: if you don't recognize them, you ignore them 16:13:36 Noah: 2 instance documents and I want to express some constraints involving both documents 16:14:22 Noah: trying to understand basic cross-references; do they show up in instances or schemas 16:15:01 MSM: these concepts (validation rules) show up in schemas 16:15:12 HST observes in passing that point 4. in section 4.3.1.1 thereof is open to misinterpretation, and suggests that "the containing element" be changed to "the parent sml:uri element" 16:15:33 HST is mildly surprised that barename references are not supported 16:16:18 MSM: can express key/keyref constraints if the targets are in the same document. you can use sml:key/keyref to do this across documents 16:17:43 MSM is explaining that SML references appear in instance documents 16:18:29 Noah: TAG is sensitive to new ways to reference things on the web that are not URIs. 16:19:16 John: the content of the SML URI reference scheme *is* a URI 16:21:07 Noah suggests that SML WG send note to TAG describing this. 16:22:16 Jonathan has joined #sml 16:22:48 [note that the provision of alternative pointing mechanisms can be used to allow systems working locally to use end point references, if they choose to.] 16:22:54 there are already several ways to do inter-document references, i assume the payoff here is the ability to use such references in validation, is that true? 16:23:12 and what is the motivation for using markup for SML references? 16:24:48 Yes, there's payoff in being able to validate the references, and to use the references for validation. One motivation for specifying specific markup is to allow systems to recognize SML references reliably. 16:27:46 i see a syntax that my xpath parser would parse - is that true xpath, a subset, or what? 16:31:31 See the uri above for details. Essentially, it's an xpath 1.0 location path, extended with the deref() function in the dynamic function space, and possibly with a few constraints on the expression 16:31:35 full xpath 1.0. you can find this in section 4.3.1.1 of the SML (not SMLIF) editor's draft 16:31:38 so what am i supposed to do with these declarations? is it defined purely on the schema level for validation, or are other operations on these cross document definitions supported? 16:31:40 (Deref calls must come first, for example) 16:32:23 which decls, specifically 16:32:30 cross-document references 16:32:45 [which declarations?] 16:33:06 the key declarations in the example(s) are in schema documents 16:33:09 and used for validation 16:33:46 Kumar: you can nest deref() functions 16:33:50 if you believe a set of documents to be valid against a schema with such sml:key definitions, you can readily use deref() to dereference pointers and find things in other elements 16:34:43 holstege has joined #sml 16:36:16 Strictly speaking, the idea of SML references and the ideas of sml:key/keyref and unique constraints are loosely coupled not tightly coupled (you can use an sml reference whether there's an sml:key constraint to guarantee its safety or not). But in practice, often deref() calls in SML model instance documents will be calls with XPaths that are guaranteed by the sml:key constraints to return (the right) things 16:38:56 i guess i'm asking this: is referential integrity the main reason for sml? 16:39:34 At a first approximation, I think the answer is yes. 16:40:25 Certainly when I look at SML from an XSDL point of view, what I see is first and foremost "things XSDL might have provided for referential integrity checking, but did not", supplied as compatible extensions. 16:40:51 At a secondary level, there are also provisions in SML-IF for more reliable definition of things like the binding of schemas to instances 16:43:39 it looks like the submission was based on a subset of xml schema, but the current draft uses all of xml schema and a profile of schematron, right? 16:43:55 Sandy: there is some overlap between schema 1.1 and SML (Schematron) but they are for different use cases 16:43:57 MSM: Schema 1.1 cannot replace Schematron completely 16:44:51 David: suggests using a different example in the slides since that example can be covered in schema 1.1 16:45:24 as part of the initial wg discussions, we decided to lift some of the restrictions made in the submission, eg wrt xs:redefine. the restrictions dropped were believed to be specific to certain contextual usages, so dropping them allows sml to be used more widely. 16:45:53 Kumar: in SML you can author constraints and dynamically bind them to different instance documents 16:46:06 johnarwe - did you drop all such xml schema restrictions, or only some of them? 16:46:21 usage of sml w/in the specific contexts the submission had in mind might require those same contextual restrictions on how SML would be used, but those restrictions are part of the contextual usage of SML not a basic feature of SML itself. 16:46:35 gotcha, that makes sense 16:46:46 I believe we removed all such restrictions. 16:46:56 great - thanks 16:47:08 ( trying to make sure i'm not looking at a superset of a subset design ) 16:48:11 fwiw, we did find during this week's mtg some use of the word "profile" still lingering in the latest editors draft that still need to be excised 16:49:03 Noah: schema 1.1 has added Schematron-like constraints that are closer to document structure. Schematron can represent things like business rules that do not mirror the document structure. 16:49:58 John:SML does not prevent other kinds of "definition" or "rule" documents from being part of an SML model. 16:51:44 Kumar: we have an implementation that you can validate a model with 1000 documents. Does take more time than just schema validation. 16:52:03 [The submission had a section called 'XML Schema profile'; the current working drafts no longer have any such section] 16:52:34 John: regarding timeframe - have discussed all substantive issues; working now on getting these into the draft for Last Call. 16:54:25 Jonathan: Query WG should be interested in reviewing SML specs. 16:55:26 Andrew: comments from schema WG before LC is probably not possible. 16:57:21 John: likely in LC starting end of Feb and lasting at least a month 16:57:54 ginny - i rather agree 16:59:38 rrsagent, generate minutes 16:59:38 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/23-sml-minutes.html ginny 17:03:11 johnarwe has left #sml 17:03:32 davepInAndOut has left #sml 17:57:44 Sandy has joined #sml 17:59:18 MSM has joined #sml 18:09:12 noah has joined #sml 18:19:51 Jonathan has joined #sml 19:11:25 Jonathan has joined #sml 19:19:18 noah has joined #sml 19:22:38 noah has joined #sml 19:26:31 davep has joined #sml 19:56:25 Jonathan has joined #sml