18:57:43 RRSAgent has joined #sml 18:57:43 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/02/07-sml-irc 18:58:21 Agenda at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Feb/0043.html 18:58:37 Jim has joined #sml 18:59:08 XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has now started 18:59:14 +Jim 18:59:19 ginny has joined #sml 18:59:53 MSM, you asked to be reminded at this time to call in 18:59:54 zakim, please call MSM-617 18:59:54 ok, MSM; the call is being made 18:59:56 +MSM 19:00:21 zakim, who's here? 19:00:21 On the phone I see Jim, MSM 19:00:22 On IRC I see ginny, Jim, RRSAgent, pratul, Zakim, MSM, trackbot-ng 19:00:51 Jim, looks like u are the lucky winner of the scribe lottery :-) 19:02:15 +Sandy 19:02:31 +[Microsoft] 19:02:34 +ginny 19:02:35 Sandy has joined #sml 19:02:44 Zakim, Microsoft is me 19:02:44 +pratul; got it 19:05:30 scribe: james lynn 19:05:42 scribenick: Jim 19:06:02 +[Microsoft] 19:06:18 zakim, this will be sml 19:06:18 ok, Jim, I see XML_SMLWG()2:00PM already started 19:06:38 rrsagent, make log public 19:06:52 MSM has changed the topic to: SML WG call, agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Feb/0043.html 19:07:05 Kumar has joined #sml 19:07:21 chair: Pratul Dublish 19:08:07 Topic: Review of minutes from 1/31/08 19:08:39 No objections to minutes. Minutes are approved. 19:08:52 Topic: June F2F 19:09:18 W3C has decided on Edinborgh, UK. 19:09:54 SML will decide on meeting in Edinburgh or in U.S. based on response to email that John sent. 19:10:09 Topic: Target Date for LC 19:12:00 not many? I see 35 open issues in Bugzilla ... 19:13:00 18 labeled needsReview 19:15:16 Zakim, who is making noise? 19:15:26 pratul, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pratul (64%), [Microsoft] (39%), MSM (5%) 19:15:58 I'll type what I'm saying into irc then 19:16:16 I don't disagree with Kumar's idea that we may be able to get through the issues quickly. 19:16:31 But I also agree with Ginny that 22 is also a perfectly fine target date. 19:16:57 I'd lean slightly toward 22 -- but if people answer Ginny's question with "yes", then another week would be useful. 19:22:45 Proposal to target Feb 22 as the date we send the LC to the webmaster. This gives us two weeks to come to agreement on proposals and review the changes. 19:24:40 It is assumed that the members of the WG will review the spec over the next two weeks, and not wait until everything is fixed, i.e. not wait until the last feew days. 19:25:05 Topic: Review hasProposal bugs. 19:26:29 s/feew/few 19:26:48 Topic: Bug 5402 19:28:29 Agreement to mark editorial in agreement with Comment #2. 19:29:54 +1 to Sandy's suggestion. 19:30:09 -Sandy 19:30:17 +Sandy 19:31:08 Having it mentioned explicitly, as a reminder of a relevant fact, is useful. 19:32:32 Perhaps reword the sentence to say "This can happen when the referencing elements use different schemes, or express ... different ways" 19:34:00 [The sentence doesn't express a checkable / enforceable constraint. But that's true whether it's in a normative section or not. The overhead of moving it to a non-normative section seems high.] 19:35:33 Sandy would like the editors to make sure the sentence in 4.2.4 is clear somewhere in the spec, else add it. 19:36:14 Topic: Bug 5403 19:36:36 [I don't want to stand in the way, but on the whole I think 4.2.4 *is* the right place to make the observation. If it troubles people to have it not explicitly marked non-normative, then I'd put it into a non-normative Note. But I'm happy to leave it to the editors' discretion.] 19:37:00 Agreement to mark as editorial. 19:37:10 Topic: Bug 5405 19:38:22 OK 19:38:44 Agreement to mark as editorial. 19:39:03 Topic: Bug 5408 19:43:16 Is the problem (a) that the non-normative section says something untrue? 19:43:38 or (b) that a normative statement has inadvertently been placed in a non-normative section? 19:44:00 To understand how to fix the error, I think we need to know whether we are looking at (a) or (b). 19:44:31 Pratul: The way this bug was submitted, it deals only with the section 9.1.3. If we need to address the case of sml:ref="false" and uses sml:nilref it should be a separate bug. 19:44:33 To know that, we need to know what the meaning of ... is 19:48:44 with respect, I do not agree with the claim that this bug is not about the question raised by Sandy 19:49:07 Please let the minutes show my dissent from the chair's ruling on that matter. 19:49:42 Pratul wants to put this Bug on hold and move to the next bug. 19:50:00 Topic: Bug 5438 19:50:45 Agreement to fix as per Comment #2 and mark as editorial. 19:51:13 Topic: Bug 5447 19:54:15 I think there are two issues with the definition: (a) it should make clear(er) that each document individually is checked, and also that the model documents as a body obey the cross-document constraints. 19:55:47 and (b) 'verying that ... the docs are valid' seems not quite right -- it might be better to say that validation is the process of determioning *whether* the documents are (indidvidually and collectively) valid 19:57:50 Agreement to fix as per Comment #1 and Comment #2 and mark as editorial. 19:58:59 Topic: Bug 5451 20:00:23 Agreement to mark as editorial in accordance with Comment #1. Not necessary for LC. 20:00:31 q+ to suggest that we list (a) the current membership of the WG at the time we go to Last Call, and (b) previous members of this WG. Also (c) if appropriate, other names of people who have never officially been members of the W3C WG. 20:02:27 Kumar has joined #sml 20:02:37 The group agrees to MSM's suggestion above on 5451 20:03:14 Topic: Review needsAgreement Bugs 20:03:31 Topic: Bug 5406 20:04:18 Sandy_ has joined #sml 20:06:31 [The question raised by Sandy about the definition of model validation, and the question I raised above in IRC, are raised to the best of my ability in bug 5461 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5461 20:07:05 In reference to Comment #2, the group believes that the wording differs when talking about properties of data as compared to what a processor must do. 20:07:30 We should change the scope of this Bug to include both SML and SML-IF. 20:08:40 Agreement to move to editorial. WG should definitely review the final wording. 20:08:58 Topic: Bug 5417 20:10:15 Still need a proposal from MSM and Sandy. 20:10:35 Topic: Bug 5418 20:12:39 Agreement to mark as editorial and will need close review. 20:13:46 [There are certainly W3C specs that use the phrase "if and only if" -- I don't know of any that spell it "iff".] 20:14:13 5461 20:14:37 Topic: Bug 5461 20:14:53 Sandy, if you've lost W3C access, should we paste the bug text into IRC? 20:21:08 I think what I heard was "Model validation is the process of determining whether an SML model is both conforming and valid" ? 20:21:51 Sandy has joined #sml 20:22:13 Model validation is the process of assessing whether or not an SML model is conforming and valid. (insert reference to conformance section) 20:22:48 Agreement reached on wording suggested by Ginny and MSM or some combination. 20:22:55 Mark as editorial. 20:23:33 Topic: Bug 5462 20:23:52 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5462 20:25:35 In 4.1.2 we could change 20:25:36 An element information item in an SML model instance document is 20:25:36 an unresolved SML reference if and only if ... 20:25:36 to 20:25:36 An SML reference in an SML model instance document is 20:25:36 an unresolved SML reference if and only if ... 20:26:20 [I think we want this change whether we allow or we ignore the example in comment 0] 20:30:13 Kumar: To be consistent with the target* constraints we should allow this but ignore the sml:nilref unless we have a good reason for handling it differently. 20:36:05 Agreement to allow this case but ignore the sml:nilref attribute along with addition of the Warning phrase above. Mark as editorial. 20:37:27 Topic: Review needsReview bugs. 20:37:59 +1 to Kumar's understanding 20:38:20 Topic: Bug 4675 20:42:39 q+ to ask whether "A conforming SML-IF Producer MUST be able to generate a referentially 20:42:39 conforming SML-IF Document from an SML model." should say "from a valid conforming SML model" ? 20:53:56 The question regarding the above should be opened in a separate bug. 20:54:09 Bug 4675 can be closed. 20:54:30 Topic: Bug 4992 20:56:43 Agreement to close Bug 4992. 20:57:11 Topic: Bug 5063 20:58:47 Will continue to review this bug. 20:59:05 Topic: Bug 5388 21:00:56 Agreement to accept changes and close Bug 5388. 21:01:35 -pratul 21:01:36 -Jim 21:01:36 -[Microsoft] 21:01:37 -ginny 21:01:39 -Sandy 21:01:43 -MSM 21:01:44 XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended 21:01:45 Attendees were Jim, MSM, Sandy, ginny, pratul, [Microsoft] 21:01:51 RRSAgent, generate minutes 21:01:51 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/02/07-sml-minutes.html Jim 21:01:57 ciao! 21:14:12 Meeting: SML Teleconference 21:14:36 rsagent, generate minutes 21:15:04 rrsagent, generate minutes 21:15:04 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/02/07-sml-minutes.html Jim 21:16:04 s/[Microsoft]/Kumar 21:16:21 rrsagent, generate minutes 21:16:21 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/02/07-sml-minutes.html Jim 21:33:41 Jim has left #sml 23:03:36 Zakim has left #sml