18:58:46 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sml
18:58:46 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-sml-irc
18:58:52 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sml
19:00:11 <Valentina> Valentina has joined #sml
19:00:22 <Sandy> Sandy has joined #sml
19:01:02 <Kumar> Kumar has joined #sml
19:02:12 <Zakim> + +1.425.836.aaaa
19:02:27 <Kumar> zakim, aaaa is Kumar
19:02:27 <Zakim> +Kumar; got it
19:02:34 <Jordan> Jordan has joined #sml
19:03:02 <Zakim> +jboucher
19:03:13 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
19:03:32 <pratul> Zakim, Microsoft is me
19:03:32 <Zakim> +pratul; got it
19:03:32 <MSM> zakim, please call MSM-Office
19:03:33 <Zakim> ok, MSM; the call is being made
19:03:35 <Zakim> +MSM
19:03:52 <Kumar> scribe: Kumar Pandit
19:03:57 <Kumar> scribenick: Kumar
19:04:18 <Kumar> meeting: SML Teleconference
19:04:51 <johnarwe> johnarwe has joined #sml
19:06:41 <Kumar> chair: John
19:07:49 <johnarwe> zakim, who is here?
19:07:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see Jim, johnarwe, Sandy, Valentina, Kumar, jboucher, pratul, MSM
19:07:51 <Zakim> On IRC I see johnarwe, Jordan, Kumar, Sandy, Valentina, Zakim, RRSAgent, Jim, pratul, ZULAH, MSM, trackbot-ng
19:08:14 <Kumar> topic: Approval of minutes from previous meeting(s)
19:08:54 <Kumar> john: any objections to the minutes?
19:09:03 <Kumar> no objections heard. Minutes approved.
19:10:46 <Kumar> john: schema working group will not meet in mar/april. This gives us opportunity to move our meeting days if we want.
19:11:40 <Kumar> john: does anyone object to keeping the current meeting dates?
19:11:58 <Kumar> no objections heard. We will keep the same meeting dates.
19:12:23 <Kumar> topic: meeting dates
19:14:36 <Kumar> Pratul: the June meeting may not be held in Zurich because of availability of hotels is unclear.
19:15:26 <Kumar> john: we can decide about June meeting over email.
19:16:36 <MSM> [For the record, the address given for a previous meeting at (what I believe is) the same Oracle site is: Conference Center, 350 Oracle Parkway, Redwood Shores, CA.]
19:17:09 <Jim> Suggest someone points out what advantages there might be to meeting in conjunction with the rest of W3C. Also, speculate on where we will be in our process.
19:17:19 <Kumar> topic: action items
19:17:46 <Kumar> john: Date for Pratul's and Kumar's action items to be updated.
19:18:02 <Kumar> topic: Review bugs with no keywords or target 
19:20:02 <Kumar> john: when a bug is not marked, we have 3 options: 1) editors can work on such bugs if they think the bug is editorial 2) same as 1 but force such bugs to be marked needsReview 3) editors must not touch such bugs.
19:20:44 <Kumar> jim: proposes #2
19:21:49 <Kumar> john: any objection to Jim's proposal?
19:22:02 <Kumar> no objections heard. Proposal #2 accepted.
19:24:39 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5398
19:24:55 <Kumar> john: I believe this is editorial.
19:25:54 <Kumar> ...discussion on the second part of this bug. Empty content v/s no child elements.
19:27:14 <Kumar> msm: I prefer empty content for both. This reduces confusion.
19:28:26 <Kumar> sandy: does this preclude comments ?
19:30:10 <MSM> E.g. what happens with <sml:data><!--* the actual document should have been here, but is not *--></sml:data>
19:30:11 <MSM> ?
19:30:39 <Kumar> sandy: if comment is present, we cannot call it empty content.
19:39:43 <MSM> [If we retain the current rule, then effectively <base64Data/> must be treated as if the document is not part of the interchange set, but <base64Data><!--* nothing here *--></base64Data> is NOT covered by the rule.
19:41:31 <Kumar> sandy: no child element => allows comments/PIs, empty content => does not allow comments/PIs. we need to fix that inconsistency.
19:42:05 <Kumar> sandy: prefers defining the end result. that is, no document present after extracting. this should be worded carefully by the editors.
19:42:49 <Sandy> instruct editors to draft wording to use phrases like "if no document is present" for both "data" and "base64data"; failing that, fall back to use different conditions: no child element for "data" and 0-length base64 for "base64data".
19:43:15 <MSM> [A concrete sketch:  something like:
19:43:15 <MSM> If the <data> element has no child element, it is said to contain a
19:43:15 <MSM> 'vacuous document'.  If the <base64Data> has a zero-length sequence of
19:43:16 <MSM> octets as its value, it similarly contains a 'vacuous document'
19:43:16 <MSM> If the model/*/document element contains only a vacuous document, then
19:43:16 <MSM> the SML-IF consumer MUST treat the document as if it is not part of
19:43:18 <MSM> the interchange set.
19:43:20 <MSM> ]
19:45:37 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5400
19:45:57 <Kumar> msm: xpath2 does not have node-set. only node-sequences.
19:47:58 <Kumar> msm: deref() input is node-set, output is node-set. I pass in 7 ref elts. each ref resolves to 1 elt. how many elts are in the output set? The logical expectation is that there would be 7 elts in the output node-set.
19:48:34 <MSM> s/The logical expectation is/I believe I heard some WG members saying they expect/
19:48:44 <Kumar> msm: if the above returns less than 7 then that would surprise some users.
19:56:49 <Kumar> john: proposal: in the case above, anywhere between 1 and 7 elts are returned. 
20:02:13 <Kumar> john: the above requires removing dup nodes from the output nodeset.
20:02:57 <Kumar> john: any objection to the above proposal?
20:03:09 <Kumar> no objections heard. mark the bug editorial.
20:04:13 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5407
20:06:33 <Kumar> kumar: I propose that we add explicit version numbers to section 7
20:09:53 <Kumar> john: proposal: use explicit version number in section 7 bullet 2 in the first bulleted list.
20:10:12 <Kumar> s/number/numbers
20:12:50 <Kumar> msm: agree with John's proposal.
20:15:15 <Kumar> john: mark as editorial
20:16:12 <johnarwe> proposal: mark 5407 editorial, add spec version numbers to section 7 first item 2, editors to consider whether to remove section 3 paragraph 2 in light of previous change/
20:17:39 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5409
20:18:02 <Kumar> john: I believe this should be editorial.
20:18:30 <Kumar> john: mark as editorial. it does not need to be reviewed after editorial changes.
20:18:54 <Kumar> topic: 5411
20:19:14 <Kumar> sandy: this looks like dup of 5400
20:19:27 <Kumar> john: mark as dup of 5400
20:20:14 <Kumar> topic: 5416
20:27:57 <Kumar> discussion similar to the one in Orlando f2f meeting...
20:33:18 <MSM> One possibility:  keep 'satisfied' in row 1, and add to each instance validation rule the sentence "Intances of E that are not SML references satisfy the
20:33:18 <MSM> constraint vacuously."
20:34:15 <MSM> Another possibility:  Add to each instance validation rule the sentence "The N.N. constraint does not apply to instances of E that are not SML references." and change row 1 to 'does not apply'
20:36:41 <Kumar> jim: proposal: leave the table where it is and apply Kirk's comment# 2 of the bug.
20:40:27 <MSM> Third possibility:  Note: the target required, target element, and target type constraints
20:40:27 <MSM> do not apply to element instances that are not SML references.
20:40:34 <MSM> Fourth: Note: the target required, target element, and target type constraints
20:40:35 <MSM> are trivially satisfied for element instances which are not SML
20:40:35 <MSM> references.
20:42:45 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5417
20:43:38 <Kumar> action: Sandy to suggest wording for bug# 5417
20:43:38 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-168 - Suggest wording for bug# 5417 [on Sandy Gao - due 2008-02-07].
20:44:01 <Kumar> action: Michael to suggest wording for bug# 5417
20:44:01 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-169 - Suggest wording for bug# 5417 [on Michael Sperberg-McQueen - due 2008-02-07].
20:44:20 <Kumar> john: mark 5417 as needsAgreement
20:44:51 <Sandy> w.r.t. diff between acyclic and target*: their pre-conditions are different for good reasons. (even targetrequired is different from targetelement/type.)
20:45:05 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5419
20:45:34 <Kumar> john: mark editorial
20:46:22 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5423
20:46:32 <Kumar> john: mark editorial
20:47:43 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5424
20:47:52 <Kumar> john: mark editorial
20:49:40 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5428
20:50:45 <Kumar> john: mark editorial
20:51:18 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5429
20:56:18 <Kumar> john: mark editorial (except one change: the second suggested change, about rule binding, should be handled as separate bug)
20:57:39 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5430
20:57:46 <Kumar> john: mark editorial
20:59:13 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5437
20:59:26 <Kumar> john: mark editorial, needsReview after changes
21:00:12 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5438
21:00:18 <Kumar> john: mark needsAgreement
21:00:48 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5442
21:00:59 <Jim> Jim has left #sml
21:01:02 <Zakim> -Sandy
21:01:16 <Zakim> -Jim
21:01:25 <Kumar> john: mark editorial
21:01:59 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5443
21:02:01 <Kumar> john: mark editorial
21:02:08 <Zakim> -pratul
21:03:01 <Kumar> rrsagent, generate minutes
21:03:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-sml-minutes.html Kumar
21:03:08 <Kumar> rrsagent, make log public
21:03:22 <MSM> rrsagent, where am i?
21:03:22 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-sml-irc#T21-03-22
21:04:09 <MSM> minutes look available to me
21:05:09 <Zakim> -johnarwe
21:05:11 <Zakim> -Valentina
21:05:13 <Zakim> -Kumar
21:05:20 <Zakim> -MSM
21:08:19 <johnarwe> johnarwe has left #sml
21:10:20 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, jboucher, in XML_SMLWG()2:00PM
21:10:23 <Zakim> XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended
21:10:24 <Zakim> Attendees were Jim, johnarwe, Sandy, Valentina, +1.425.836.aaaa, Kumar, jboucher, pratul, MSM
21:27:59 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sml
21:39:55 <ZULAH> ZULAH has joined #sml
23:28:13 <ZULAH> ZULAH has joined #sml