W3C SML Face to Face Meeting of 2008-04-02 -- 02 Apr 2008

<zeckert> I'm on the phone John

<johnarwe> zulah, you are AC 720?

<Jordan> that was me, john

<zeckert> no - I don't think so

<johnarwe> are the folks on the phone hearing music?

<zeckert> yes we are

<ginny> scribe: Virginia Smith

<ginny> scribenick: ginny

EPR Note

Kirk: will outline Note before taking comments
... EPR reference scheme is different from other reference schemes in that EPR does not give consumer enough information to resolve the reference from service
... e.g., need to know protocol
... section 2 defines framework for EPR-based reference schemes not a scheme itself
... section 3 shows how to take framework and build a scheme with info about the protocol

Kirk is reviewing section 2

Ginny: is it possible to create an EPR scheme that is a target-complete identifier?

Kirk: No, there will be some knowledge needed out of band

John: strictly speaking, technically speaking you could but it would not be practical

Kirk is reviewing section 3 - a concrete reference scheme definition that uses the framework of section 2

John: current text says SML extends Schema; should drop "Schema" or use both "Schema" and "XML"

Discussing John's comments; John will enter bugs later.

Section 2 - separate bugs required for:

scribe: content of service response message
... use of model consumer
... different bindings may be required - which bindings are we talking about

Sandy: section 2, bullet 2c - questions "should"; how normative should we be?

John suggests using "is unresolved"

Sandy: need more detail on example used in last paragraph regarding GED example

Ginny: section 4, bullet 1, first sentence is not true ("will not be able to"); 2nd sentence is ok.

John suggests breaking these 2 sentences apart

Discussion of section 4

Ginny: premise of 4.1 is that an SML reference that in an instance of EPR scheme cannot be changed. This is incorrect. Section 4.2 needs to be changed also since it is based on 4.1.

c/changed/changed to an instance of an SML URI scheme/

Test Cases

<pratul> Call for Implementations: See http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi

Kumar: first step would be to have a list of test cases to discuss
... each test case will be an SML-IF document

Kumar has an initial list; will email this to the group tomorrow

Test cases should be in CVS; need to ask MSM about this

Bug 5558

<pratul> XML spec defines a document as

Pratul: propose that the definition of document changed to "an XML document" only, remove "well-formed"

<pratul> [Definition: A data object is an XML document if it is well-formed, as defined in this specification. In addition, the XML document is valid if it meets certain further constraints.]

Pratul: should we repeat "well-formed" in our conformance criteria when an XML document is defined as "well-formed"
... how about "a model is a conforming SML model ..."

RESOLUTION: Change conformance criteria to read "a model is a conforming SML model ..."
... change bug to editorial

<zeckert> scribe: zeckert

<scribe> scribenick: zulah

<johnarwe> starting up the call now - still waiting for kumar, but an xhtml discussion is ensuing

continuation of XHTML discussion

<johnarwe> Q from Ginny on the bifocal solution to the <img > tag in xhtml. What if the 2 ref schemes were not (1) src= (2) longdesc= ... per yesterday's discussion ... but instead were (1) src= alone (2) src= and longdesc= . Any better/worse? Appears to be at least as good as yesterday's take.

<zeckert> MSM: response could be that we have convinced ourselves that a reference scheme can be created for XLink but for XMHTML would would get a partial solution. Agrees that we could use XLink as a reference scheme.

<zeckert> bifocal solution refers to (for XHTML) two different reference schemes. One where only src is considered and the other where only longdesc is considered.

<zeckert> pratul has sent notes for the group to consider

<zeckert> pratul: suggests a formal note on the reference scheme

<zeckert> johnarwe: proposal that in response to 5561 and 5562, we will publish a working group note on the XLink reference scheme only and that we will not publish a working group note about XHTML

<MSM> Pratul's notes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-sml/2008Apr/0000.html

<johnarwe> we need to SPLIT that into 2 proposals

<zeckert> johnarwe: proposal is that, in response to bug 5561 for the XLink reference scheme, the group will respond by publishing a working group note on the reference scheme that we discussed yesterday.

<zeckert> kumar: will a content dependency in scheduling be introduced by this?

<zeckert> johnarwe: no dependency is created by the W3C process. In negotiating the resolution of the bug, one could be introduced.

<zeckert> RESOLUTION: the proposal passes and the group will create this working group note.

<johnarwe> in particular, no objections noted

<zeckert> johnarwe: should the bug be a won't fix?

<zeckert> pratul: or something that we leave for a future version?

<zeckert> discussion ensues where the group agrees that the issue with the XHTML reference scheme does not come from the simple and extended links but rather

<zeckert> MSM clarifies what could happen in the W3C process if there was disagreement over resolving the but as to be done in a future version.

<zeckert> johnarwe: proposal is that, in response http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5561 for the XHTML reference scheme, the group will respond by marking the bug later (keyword decided), and we will create in email the text of the resolution.

<zeckert> s.bug 5561.http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5562.

<zeckert> s.bug 5561.http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5561.

<zeckert> johnarwe: we will update the keyword to decided (now) and in the text on the comment of the bug state our intent to once we have drafted appropriate response text, we will make the bug resolved later.

<johnarwe> revised proposal for 5562: (1) we commence drafting the eventual response text (2) once the response text is available, update the bug with the agreed-to response text plus the boilerplate and add the 'decided' kw (3) once the submitter either acks our update from step 2 or the 2-week submitter-response period expires, we update the bug to resolved+later

<zeckert> no objections

<zeckert> RESOLUTION: Proposal is adopted

<zeckert> ACTION: MSM to draft initial response text for 5562 and send it in email to the group for discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/02-sml-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-178 - Draft initial response text for 5562 and send it in email to the group for discussion [on Michael Sperberg-McQueen - due 2008-04-09].

<johnarwe> Tomorrow's regularly scheduled telecon is CANCELLED

Call for implementations discussion cont.

<zeckert> johnarwe: one question from previous discussion that we have not answered is what do we do to maintain the test cases and description document (referring to change control)

<zeckert> MSM: put the test cases in CVS on dev.w3.org

<zeckert> MSM: expects that we would create a test suite directory parallel to existing build directory

<zeckert> kumar: wishes to discuss the directory structure now

<zeckert> johnarwe: believes that this will require more thought than we have time for here

<zeckert> MSM: recommends that a test suite plan document be created which includes this information

<zeckert> MSM: one question is how do we expect test cases to come about? Some implementers will have tests. Do we expect that these test cases will be contributed?

<zeckert> discussion of directory structure ensures

<zeckert> XInclude has directory for each contributor and contribution is simply unzipped into that dir.

<zeckert> Appears that this is not always the process.

<MSM> For example: XQuery test suite is at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/xquery-test-suite/

<zeckert> MSM: in the case of XML Schema there is a similar lack of interoperability because processors can do whatever they like in acquiring components. The schema test suite specifies the instance and schema docs for a test. How the processor is told about these, is outside of the test. He is nervous to stress that SML and SML-IF are two different things and the the only way that we test SML is via...

<zeckert> kumar: wanted to identify a place where the test cases could be added. Single directory where we put test cases.

<zeckert> MSM: Would work up to a certain size. XQuery has upwards of 40K test suites.

<zeckert> johnarwe: COSMOS has about 130, expects it to go to 150.

<zeckert> kumar: doesn't mean unit tests. Means a complete SML-IF document. Does not see us writing thousands of these.

<zeckert> ginny: suggests some structure within dir, e.g., testsource

<zeckert> MSM: we will have multiple tests using the same input model documents

<zeckert> johnarwe: as soon as you use locators you are outside of the scope of SML-IF. Thinks he heard here's a set of schemas, instances, and schematrons and then we will bind these for differnet tests. Each test case will have to be a complete SML-IF document.

<zeckert> MSM: planning not to test locator support?

<zeckert> johnarwe: testing would be meaningless, it is not required to be processed. You have to treat located documents as if they are not in the interchange set.

<zeckert> kumar: implementation ignores locator

<zeckert> ...SML-IF docs.

<zeckert> pratul: if you don't understand SML-IF, you can take the documents out (of the IF doc)

<zeckert> MSM: thinks that we will want a test catalog

<zeckert> johnarwe: one could do the following: the default way to render the catalog is via SML-IF, if you want to run a test, you can XPath, or XSLT over SML-IF that uses locators only (or a mix of locators and embedded).

<zeckert> MSM: what are the results of a test?

<zeckert> kumar: the only thing will be valid or invalid. No portable way to test the error codes.

<zeckert> johnarwe: notes that the reasons for failing a test (invalid) can be different

<zeckert> ginny: can map errors between implementations

<zeckert> pratul: concerned that it may be difficult to get interop. This has been done in the past with small tests.

<zeckert> MSM: believes that it was suggested at one point that we needed to be more clear about what the result of SML validation was.

<zeckert> johnarwe: yes, this desire was expressed.

<zeckert> MSM: has known specs that have tried to be very explicite about raising specific errors, and others that left completely implementation dependent exactly what errors were reported. Thinks that there is a different view between the two implementers. Provides an example from schema.

<zeckert> MSM: thinks that in a case where there are multiple errors, you have no expectation that two implementations will report the same error. Difficult to construct a test case that has only one way to view its error.

<zeckert> kumar: SML does not specify the order for validation. This does depend on how focused the test cases are.

<zeckert> ginny: required to test all valid schematron constraints? or for schema? What is the expectation? are we required to test this.

<zeckert> kumar: no. too many combinations.

<zeckert> johnarwe: just testing the additions from SML

<pratul> The interop tests used by the private WG (that defined SML before submitting to W3C) are available at http://serviceml.org/200701-Interop-b.zip

<zeckert> MSM: is an SML implementation required to support schematron and ditto for XML schema 1.0

<zeckert> johnarwe: required to support but a particular input might not exercise requirements

<zeckert> MSM: process document says that we must show that we have two independent interoperable implementations of each feature. Not sure where we should draw the line. For example, don't want to have to do full schema conformance checking. Yet nervous about saying that we won't do any of this.

<zeckert> MSM: Feels that he needs to ask around about this. How did XQuery and XSLT do about schema awareness?

<zeckert> johnarwe: what did Schema do about its XML awareness?

<zeckert> MSM: schema doesn't check well formedness because input is an infoset. All sorts of assumptions in schema about well formedness. Possible that the test suit is inadequate.

<zeckert> MSM: Wants to know more about what different WGs have done (what have done a good job with tests).

<zeckert> MSM: does not like the idea that SML produces one bit of information

<zeckert> johnarwe: that's just the limit of interoperability

<zeckert> johnarwe: would feel comfortable for interop testing if the reporting could be validated by a human as valid or invalid for the same reasons.

<zeckert> MSM: given standard format for test cases and a catalog for results it will be possible to produce results that can be eyeballed by humans. And we have a small enough number of tests that this is reasonable.

<zeckert> ACTION: kumar to draft a test plan and send to the group for discussion at the 4/17/08 meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/02-sml-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-179 - Draft a test plan and send to the group for discussion at the 4/17/08 meeting [on Kumar Pandit - due 2008-04-09].

<zeckert> group discussed (1) directory structure, (2) how to package tests, (3) error message compatibility issues, and (4) to what degree should we test schematron and schema

<zeckert> MSM: would like a catalog and would like a standardized format for reporting test results

<zeckert> The group had a clarifying question on acyclic and made no decision as a result of the discussion

<zeckert> MSM: would like (3) to be and what format do we use to allow tests report test results

<zeckert> (revised) group discussed (1) directory structure, (2) how to package tests, and (3) how are test results characterized, (4) in what format do we allow test reports, and (5) to what degree should we test schematron and schema

- DRAFT -

W3C SML Face to Face Meeting of 2008-04-02

02 Apr 2008

Attendees

Contents

EPR Note

Test Cases

Bug 5558

continuation of XHTML discussion

Call for implementations discussion cont.

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output