IRC log of sml on 2008-06-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:04:07 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sml
18:04:07 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-sml-irc
18:04:26 [Kumar]
scribe: Kumar Pandit
18:04:29 [Kumar]
scribenick: Kumar
18:04:42 [Kumar]
meeting: SML Conf Call
18:04:55 [Kumar]
chair: Pratul
18:04:59 [MSM]
zakim, who's here?
18:04:59 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [Microsoft], Kirk, johnarwe, MSM, kumar, jim
18:05:00 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Sandy, Kumar, johnarwe, pratul, Jim, Zakim, MSM, trackbot
18:05:19 [ginny]
ginny has joined #sml
18:05:23 [Kumar]
topic: Approval of minutes from previous meeting(s):
18:05:41 [Kumar]
Pratul: minutes for 6/5 call are approved due to no objection.
18:05:54 [Kumar]
topic: Review of action items
18:06:01 [Zakim]
+ginny
18:07:48 [Kirk]
Kirk has joined #sml
18:08:43 [Kumar]
Kumar: my AI is related to Pratul's. Not done yet.
18:08:56 [Kumar]
msm: Will have AIs done before f2f
18:09:13 [Kumar]
topic: Review all non-editorial bugs with external comments
18:09:39 [Kumar]
topic: bug# 5522
18:12:54 [Zakim]
+Sandy
18:14:53 [Kumar]
Kumar: The existing text is correct. I have mentioned this in comment# 7.
18:16:30 [Kumar]
msm: the existing text looks correct, ok to close this bug.
18:18:57 [Kumar]
Pratul: we need to mention in the bug that comment# 5 no longer holds.
18:24:53 [Kumar]
John: Henry looked at an old draft that really had the word 'containing' and since we fixed that in the LC draft, we should resolve this bug as 'fixed'.
18:26:04 [Kumar]
resolution: mark as fixed.
18:26:44 [Kumar]
bug# 5541
18:26:49 [Kumar]
topic: bug# 5541
18:28:33 [Kumar]
Pratul: proposal in comment# 14
18:37:01 [Kumar]
Pratul: does this preclude identifying references using sml:ref=true ?
18:37:05 [Zakim]
+Kirk.a
18:37:08 [Kumar]
msm: no
18:37:37 [MSM]
zakim, who's here?
18:37:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [Microsoft], Kirk, johnarwe, MSM, kumar, jim, ginny, Sandy, Kirk.a
18:37:40 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Kirk, ginny, RRSAgent, Sandy, Kumar, johnarwe, pratul, Jim, Zakim, MSM, trackbot
18:38:09 [Kumar]
msm: PSVI will still have the attribute value if the attribute is present in the instance.
18:39:15 [Kumar]
resolution: fix per comment# 14, mark decided+editorial
18:41:15 [johnarwe]
LC text: 4.1.1 SML Reference
18:41:15 [johnarwe]
18:41:15 [johnarwe]
An element information item in an SML model instance document is as an SML reference if and only if it has an attribute information item for which all of the following is true:
18:41:15 [johnarwe]
18:41:15 [johnarwe]
1.
18:41:17 [johnarwe]
18:41:19 [johnarwe]
Its [local name] is ref
18:41:21 [johnarwe]
2.
18:41:23 [johnarwe]
18:41:25 [johnarwe]
Its [namespace name] is http://www.w3.org/2008/03/sml
18:41:27 [johnarwe]
3.
18:41:29 [johnarwe]
18:41:31 [johnarwe]
Its [normalized value], after whitespace normalization using collapse following schema rules, is either "true" or "1".
18:41:34 [johnarwe]
18:41:37 [johnarwe]
This mechanism enables schema-less identification of SML reference, i.e., SML references can be identified without relying on the Post Schema Validation Infoset. [XML Schema Structures]
18:41:39 [johnarwe]
18:41:41 [johnarwe]
Although its normative definition allows several syntaxes to be used to identify an SML reference, for the sake of brevity and consistency, the rest of this specification uses sml:ref="true" to denote an SML reference in examples and text.
18:50:03 [Kumar]
john: The proposed text would replace the 'implementation-defined' part of the current text this is not good.
18:51:17 [MSM]
[Seaking for myself, I would like (a) to allow non-validating consumers to use either the base infoset or the PSVI, (b) to say so explicitly and clearly, not indirectly, (c) to say so normatively.]
18:51:58 [MSM]
[... and (d) to require non-validating consumers to document which they use, as part of their claim of conformance]
18:56:31 [Kumar]
john to open another bug about non-validating consumers.
18:56:39 [Kumar]
action: john to open another bug about non-validating consumers.
18:56:39 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-194 - Open another bug about non-validating consumers. [on John Arwe - due 2008-06-19].
18:56:58 [MSM]
zakim, who's here?
18:56:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [Microsoft], Kirk, johnarwe, MSM, kumar, jim, ginny, Sandy, Kirk.a
18:57:01 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Kirk, ginny, RRSAgent, Sandy, Kumar, johnarwe, pratul, Jim, Zakim, MSM, trackbot
18:57:04 [Kumar]
resolution: fix per comment# 14, mark decided+editorial
18:58:11 [Kumar]
topic: bug# 5519
18:58:25 [Kumar]
ginny: not ready to make a decision on this bug till I see msm's test case.
18:58:42 [Kumar]
topic: bug# 5529
18:59:58 [MSM]
[text in comment #5 works for me]
19:03:50 [MSM]
I wonder if 'no element-specific constraints' would work?
19:07:01 [MSM]
or 'no (target-* or acyclic) constraints'
19:09:55 [Kumar]
...long discussion about the current text.
19:10:12 [Kumar]
s/current/proposed/
19:12:39 [Kumar]
resolution: remove needsReview, resolve as fixed
19:13:08 [Kumar]
action: ginny to open a new bug for defining the term 'SML constraints'
19:13:08 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - ginny
19:13:23 [Kumar]
action: virginia to open a new bug for defining the term 'SML constraints'
19:13:23 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-195 - Open a new bug for defining the term 'SML constraints' [on Virginia Smith - due 2008-06-19].
19:13:45 [Kumar]
topic: bug# 5598
19:15:24 [Kumar]
ginny: will re-fix the bug to use smlfn prefix
19:15:29 [Kumar]
resolution: mark editorial again
19:15:42 [Kumar]
topic: bug# 5546
19:18:10 [pratul]
Zakim, Microsoft is me
19:18:10 [Zakim]
+pratul; got it
19:19:40 [Kumar]
Kumar: I had sent my findings about 2557 to public-sml. John had responded to it.
19:20:29 [Kumar]
John: The biggest reason I remember was 2557 allows one alias per document, sml-if needs multiple.
19:21:35 [Kumar]
Pratul: Kumar, can you add your findings to the bug?
19:21:39 [Kumar]
Kumar: yes
19:27:30 [johnarwe]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Apr/0153.html
19:30:59 [Kumar]
john: ... talks about findings in his email.
19:35:41 [Kumar]
john: everyone should read the emails sent by John & Kumar and then they can decide if they want to do deeper research by reading the rfc as well. Once everyone has done the research, we can decide on this bug.
19:35:57 [Zakim]
-ginny
19:36:11 [Kumar]
topic: bug# 5707
19:48:32 [Kumar]
sandy: if relative reference is an empty string, we can skip 2.a as well.
19:49:05 [Kumar]
modified proposal:
19:49:25 [Kumar]
Note: If the relative reference is an empty string or if it consists of only a
19:49:25 [Kumar]
fragment component then steps 2.a and 2.b are skipped because the document containing the
19:49:25 [Kumar]
SML reference is the target document.
19:59:49 [johnarwe]
apologies, need to leave promptly today for another call
20:00:04 [johnarwe]
reminder to PD and MSM, mtg in 1 hr
20:00:07 [Kumar]
sandy: we cannot deduce the conclusion in the proposed non-normative note using the normative text therefore that text should be normative.
20:00:12 [Jim]
need to leave also
20:00:12 [Zakim]
-johnarwe
20:00:14 [Jim]
Jim has left #sml
20:00:23 [Kumar]
msm: I think that text should remain non-normative.
20:00:53 [MSM]
johnarwe, ack
20:01:05 [MSM]
sandy, the other bug on which I think this one depends is 5542
20:01:07 [Kumar]
Pratul: Sandy can you add a summary of today's discussion to the bug?
20:01:18 [Zakim]
-jim
20:02:04 [Zakim]
-pratul
20:02:12 [Zakim]
-Kirk.a
20:02:14 [Zakim]
-kumar
20:02:25 [Kumar]
rrsagent, generate minutes
20:02:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-sml-minutes.html Kumar
20:02:32 [Kumar]
rrsagent, make log public
20:03:51 [Zakim]
-MSM
20:03:51 [Zakim]
-Sandy
20:06:01 [johnarwe]
johnarwe has left #sml
20:08:51 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, Kirk, in XML_SMLWG()2:00PM
20:08:55 [Zakim]
XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended
20:08:56 [Zakim]
Attendees were Kirk, johnarwe, MSM, kumar, jim, ginny, Sandy, pratul
21:49:46 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sml