See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: Kumar Pandit
<scribe> scribenick: Kumar
john: any objections to the minutes?
no objections heard. Minutes approved.
john: schema working group will
not meet in mar/april. This gives us opportunity to move our
meeting days if we want.
... does anyone object to keeping the current meeting
dates?
no objections heard. We will keep the same meeting dates.
Pratul: the June meeting may not be held in Zurich because of availability of hotels is unclear.
john: we can decide about June meeting over email.
<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.]
<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.
john: Date for Pratul's and Kumar's action items to be updated.
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.
jim: proposes #2
john: any objection to Jim's proposal?
no objections heard. Proposal #2 accepted.
john: I believe this is
editorial.
... discussion on the second part of this bug. Empty content
v/s no child elements.
msm: I prefer empty content for both. This reduces confusion.
sandy: does this preclude comments ?
<MSM> E.g. what happens with <sml:data><!--* the actual document should have been here, but is not *--></sml:data>
<MSM> ?
sandy: if comment is present, we cannot call it empty content.
<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.
sandy: no child element =>
allows comments/PIs, empty content => does not allow
comments/PIs. we need to fix that inconsistency.
... prefers defining the end result. that is, no document
present after extracting. this should be worded carefully by
the editors.
<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".
<MSM> [A concrete sketch: something like:
<MSM> If the <data> element has no child element, it is said to contain a
<MSM> 'vacuous document'. If the <base64Data> has a zero-length sequence of
<MSM> octets as its value, it similarly contains a 'vacuous document'
<MSM> If the model/*/document element contains only a vacuous document, then
<MSM> the SML-IF consumer MUST treat the document as if it is not part of
<MSM> the interchange set.
<MSM> ]
msm: xpath2 does not have
node-set. only node-sequences.
... 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? I believe I heard some WG members saying they
expect that there would be 7 elts in the output node-set.
... if the above returns less than 7 then that would surprise
some users.
john: proposal: in the case
above, anywhere between 1 and 7 elts are returned.
... the above requires removing dup nodes from the output
nodeset.
... any objection to the above proposal?
no objections heard. mark the bug editorial.
kumar: I propose that we add explicit version numbers to section 7
john: proposal: use explicit version numbers in section 7 bullet 2 in the first bulleted list.
msm: agree with John's proposal.
john: mark as editorial
<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/
john: I believe this should be
editorial.
... mark as editorial. it does not need to be reviewed after
editorial changes.
sandy: this looks like dup of 5400
john: mark as dup of 5400
discussion similar to the one in Orlando f2f meeting...
<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
<MSM> constraint vacuously."
<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'
jim: proposal: leave the table where it is and apply Kirk's comment# 2 of the bug.
<MSM> Third possibility: Note: the target required, target element, and target type constraints
<MSM> do not apply to element instances that are not SML references.
<MSM> Fourth: Note: the target required, target element, and target type constraints
<MSM> are trivially satisfied for element instances which are not SML
<MSM> references.
<scribe> ACTION: Sandy to suggest wording for bug# 5417 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-sml-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-168 - Suggest wording for bug# 5417 [on Sandy Gao - due 2008-02-07].
<scribe> ACTION: Michael to suggest wording for bug# 5417 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-sml-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-169 - Suggest wording for bug# 5417 [on Michael Sperberg-McQueen - due 2008-02-07].
john: mark 5417 as needsAgreement
<Sandy> w.r.t. diff between acyclic and target*: their pre-conditions are different for good reasons. (even targetrequired is different from targetelement/type.)
john: mark editorial
john: mark editorial
john: mark editorial
john: mark editorial
john: mark editorial (except one change: the second suggested change, about rule binding, should be handled as separate bug)
john: mark editorial
john: mark editorial, needsReview after changes
john: mark needsAgreement
john: mark editorial
john: mark editorial
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/The logical expectation is/I believe I heard some WG members saying they expect/ Succeeded: s/number/numbers/ Found Scribe: Kumar Pandit Found ScribeNick: Kumar WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Fourth Jim Jordan Kumar Microsoft Pratul Valentina ZULAH aaaa jboucher john johnarwe joined msm proposal sandy scribenick sml trackbot-ng You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Got date from IRC log name: 31 Jan 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-sml-minutes.html People with action items: michael sandy[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]