IRC log of sml on 2008-06-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

09:09:02 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sml
09:09:02 [RRSAgent]
logging to
09:09:17 [johnarwe]
johnarwe has joined #sml
09:12:58 [johnarwe]
09:13:13 [johnarwe]
09:13:29 [ginny]
meeting: W3C SML Face to Face Meeting of 2008-Jun-23
09:13:31 [ginny]
scribe: Virginia Smith
09:13:32 [ginny]
scribenick: ginny
09:13:34 [ginny]
chair: John Arwe
09:13:35 [ginny]
09:13:37 [ginny]
regrets: Julia, Pratul
09:14:55 [ginny]
zakim, who's here?
09:14:55 [Zakim]
apparently XML_SMLWG()3:00AM has ended, ginny
09:14:56 [Zakim]
On IRC I see johnarwe, RRSAgent, ginny, Kirk, Kumar, MSM-EDI, Zakim, yzhou, trackbot
09:15:54 [MSM-EDI]
MSM-EDI has changed the topic to: SML ftf meeting Edinburgh, agenda
09:15:57 [ginny]
Topic: Approval of 6/19 minutes
09:16:20 [ginny]
RESOLUTION: approved
09:16:58 [ginny]
Topic: October meeting
09:21:44 [ginny]
Most don't care which days of that week we meet in Redmond; Michael has a mild preference for Mon-Wed.
09:24:01 [ginny]
Topic: Schema
09:24:02 [ginny]
Now in Last Call; accepting comments until Sep 12.
09:25:24 [ginny]
Topic: Bug 5636
09:30:37 [ginny]
Discussion of John's comment - P1e Anonymous type definition as a child of a GED
09:33:57 [ginny]
This is a special case that is significant in the case of substitution groups.
09:35:15 [ginny]
What we really mean by P1d is "local TDs except for the ones that are in the set P1e"
09:35:47 [ginny]
John is updating the bug with this information.
09:45:19 [ginny]
MSM: if we say "assign no meaning to rules property in these cases" an SML processor cannot assign any meaning that affects SML validation
09:46:52 [ginny]
Proposal: Allow (but not talk about) meaning applied to rules property in cases of P1c, P1d, and P1f; that is remove the "MUST NOT"s
09:46:54 [ginny]
No objections heard.
09:49:08 [ginny]
Kumar: what about rules on a local element that is a restriction of a global element?
09:55:24 [ginny]
MSM: E.g., CT2 restricts CT1; element A in CT2 changes A in CT1; rules are allowed in A in CT1; currently spec does not allow rules in A in CT2
10:03:48 [ginny]
Kumar: bullet 3 in 6.3.2 disallows this conflict - A in CT2 cannot be made local
10:29:33 [MSM-EDI]
zakim, what's the code?
10:29:33 [Zakim]
the conference code is 76594 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), MSM-EDI
10:30:55 [Zakim]
XML_SMLWG()3:00AM has now started
10:31:02 [Zakim]
10:31:10 [MSM-EDI]
zakim, ??P0 is Edinburgh
10:31:10 [Zakim]
+Edinburgh; got it
10:31:24 [MSM-EDI]
zakim, Edinburth also has John, Ginny, Kirk, Kumar, MSM
10:31:24 [Zakim]
sorry, MSM-EDI, I do not recognize a party named 'Edinburth'
10:31:32 [MSM-EDI]
zakim, Edinburgh also has John, Ginny, Kirk, Kumar, MSM
10:31:32 [Zakim]
+John, Ginny, Kirk, Kumar, MSM; got it
10:31:45 [ginny]
Discussion of whether this restriction should be removed and the effect of this on future specs that may layer on SML
10:31:58 [Zakim]
10:32:47 [MSM-EDI]
zakim, [IBM is yzhou
10:32:47 [Zakim]
+yzhou; got it
10:33:00 [MSM-EDI]
yzhou, we are discussing
10:33:20 [MSM-EDI]
and in particular the second change labeled Prong 2 change 3
10:33:52 [MSM-EDI]
whether to allow (or continue to forbid) restriction of a global element E1 with non-empty {rules} to a local element
10:34:44 [ginny]
Kumar: showing example of 2 globals A elements in CT1 and one local A and one global A in CT2
10:36:36 [ginny]
... no easy way to match which A is based on which A in CT1; if only one A has rules this is a problem
10:39:29 [ginny]
... this becomes a problem if we remove the restriction in 6.3.2, bullet 3
10:45:02 [ginny]
ginny: if we remove the MUST NOT restrictions, concerned that we may have to revisit parts of the spec
10:45:32 [Kirk2]
Kirk2 has joined #sml
10:46:57 [Kirk2]
Kirk2 is Kirk
10:47:39 [ginny]
rrsagent, generate minutes
10:47:39 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ginny
10:47:40 [ginny]
rrsagent, make log public
10:48:03 [MSM-EDI]
there seems to be consensus that bullet 3 of 3.6.2 should continue to forbid restricting a global element dclaraiton with rules to a local declaration
10:49:08 [ginny]
Consensus is not to make prong2, change 3b.
10:54:04 [ginny]
Discussion of prong 2, change 1
10:55:01 [ginny]
MSM: proposal to replace 'elsewhere' with 'in any other kind of schema component'
10:55:53 [Kumar]
Kumar has joined #sml
10:57:19 [johnarwe]
(to go into bug)
10:57:20 [johnarwe]
(f2f consensus)
10:57:20 [johnarwe]
- prong 2 change 1 (removal of general prohibition of rules on locals) accepted in concept
10:57:20 [johnarwe]
- prong 2 change 3 ...second change 3 NOT accepted, keep this restriction
10:57:21 [johnarwe]
10:57:21 [johnarwe]
prong 2 change 1: want reasonable reader to understand that if {rules} is non-empty on a component for which sml assigns no meaning, those {rules} have no effect on sml validity.
10:57:23 [johnarwe]
10:57:25 [johnarwe]
prong 2 change 1: editorial sugg, replace "elsewhere" with "in any other kind of schema component"
10:58:35 [ginny]
prong 2, change 2
11:00:55 [ginny]
proposal to say undefined rather than empty set
11:02:21 [ginny]
s/undefined/value of rules is not defined in all other cases/
11:02:41 [ginny]
prong 2 change 3a
11:04:56 [ginny]
proposal: remove the MUST statement and do not replace it (6.3.2, bullet 1)
11:05:44 [ginny]
proposal: remove entire paragraph
11:06:08 [ginny]
consensus is to remove 6.3.2, bullet 1
11:06:40 [ginny]
prong 2 change 3b
11:07:03 [ginny]
consensus already reached is not to do this change
11:08:57 [ginny]
prong 2 change 4 & 5 - consensus is not to make these changes
11:13:38 [ginny]
prong 1 change 1: consensus is to reject this change
11:21:21 [ginny]
prong 1 change 2
11:21:38 [MSM-EDI]
In 6.3.1 para 2, change from
11:21:39 [MSM-EDI]
sch:schema elements MAY be embedded in members of the {application
11:21:39 [MSM-EDI]
information} of the ...
11:21:39 [MSM-EDI]
11:21:39 [MSM-EDI]
sch:schema elements MAY appear as items in the {application
11:21:40 [MSM-EDI]
information} of the ...
11:25:01 [ginny]
consensus is to use the above proposal
11:26:28 [ginny]
prong 1 change 3: duplicate, ignore
11:31:37 [ginny]
prong 1, change 4a & 4b: consensus is to reject these changes
11:32:10 [ginny]
prong 1 change 5a: consensus is to reject this change
11:32:38 [ginny]
prong 1 change 5b: consensus is to reject this change
11:33:39 [ginny]
prong 1 change 6: consensus is to reject this change
11:35:11 [ginny]
prong 1 change 7: consensus is to reject this change
11:42:40 [ginny]
prong 1 change 8
11:43:03 [ginny]
Kirk: do we need to consider other aspects if we do not make this change?
11:44:38 [ginny]
MSM: need to define local rules for other schema components as empty in 6.3.1 para 1
11:44:55 [ginny]
s/para 1/para 3/
11:46:37 [ginny]
MSM: should revisit prong 1, change 3
11:47:18 [ginny]
consensus is to reject change in prong 1 change 8
11:48:05 [ginny]
new proposal to accept prong 2 change 2
11:48:17 [ginny]
proposal accepted
11:48:20 [ginny]
rrsagent, generate minutes
11:48:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ginny
11:49:37 [MSM-EDI]
lunch break ... for an hour ....
11:49:44 [Zakim]
11:49:46 [Zakim]
11:49:48 [Zakim]
XML_SMLWG()3:00AM has ended
11:49:49 [Zakim]
Attendees were Edinburgh, John, Ginny, Kirk, Kumar, MSM, [IBM_Watson], yzhou
11:51:05 [ginny]
rrsagent, generate minutes
11:51:05 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ginny
12:59:57 [yzhou]
yzhou has joined #sml
13:01:12 [yzhou]
yzhou has joined #sml
13:13:45 [Kirk]
Kirk has joined #sml
13:14:11 [MSM-EDI]
WG reconvenes .................................
13:15:03 [Kirk]
scribe: Kirk Wilson
13:15:21 [Kirk]
scribenick: Kirk
13:16:11 [Kumar]
Kumar has joined #sml
13:16:42 [johnarwe]
johnarwe has joined #sml
13:17:47 [Sandy]
Sandy has joined #sml
13:18:14 [MSM-EDI]
13:18:39 [Kirk]
TOPIC: Rule attachment to Schema:
13:18:45 [Zakim]
XML_SMLWG()3:00AM has now started
13:18:52 [Zakim]
13:18:54 [MSM-EDI]
zakim, ??P is Dunedin
13:18:54 [Zakim]
+Dunedin; got it
13:19:22 [MSM-EDI]
zakim, Dunedin also has johnarwe, Kirk, Kumar, Ginny, MSM
13:19:22 [Zakim]
+johnarwe, Kirk, Kumar, Ginny, MSM; got it
13:19:57 [Zakim]
13:20:31 [MSM-EDI]
zakim, +[IBM_Watson] is yzhou
13:20:31 [Zakim]
sorry, MSM-EDI, I do not recognize a party named '+[IBM_Watson]'
13:21:08 [MSM-EDI]
zakim, [IBM_Watson] is yzhou
13:21:08 [Zakim]
+yzhou; got it
13:23:57 [Kirk]
John: Notes that 5636 was blocking 5637.
13:25:27 [yzhou]
yzhou has joined #sml
13:25:29 [Kirk]
John: RE 5636. Issue needs to be Editorial, Needs Review
13:25:46 [ginny]
ginny has joined #sml
13:25:54 [Kirk]
...New classification passes without objection.
13:28:18 [Kirk]
John: 5636 was about consistency of text; 5637 was about understanding the text.
13:28:57 [Kirk]
...It could be that discussion of 5636 "bled into" 5636.
13:30:07 [Kirk]
MSM: 5637 should be reviewed after we review changes in text for 5636 or should we mark 5637 as a dup of 5636?
13:30:29 [Kirk]
Kumar: We would be reviewing changes for 5636.
13:31:05 [MSM-EDI]
13:31:07 [Kirk]
John: Will mark 5637 as blocking 5636.
13:31:36 [Kirk]
TOPIC: Relationship of Schema Validity/SML Validity (5519).
13:34:21 [Kirk]
MSM: Performing SML validation requires Type annotations in the PSVI. Type annotations is affected by schema validation and processors can be lazy and not validate subtrees.
13:34:37 [Kirk]
...MSM owes Ginny a test case.
13:37:51 [Kirk]
MSM: We nned to reach agreement on accepting variability in SML validation processing based on variability in Schema validation. Or shall we sspecify what kind of XML Schema validator (lazy vs. industrious) that we wish to require.
13:38:08 [Kirk]
John: Things we agree upon:
13:39:32 [Kirk]
...Do we have any affect on {Schema validation attempted}? We seem to have agreement on this.
13:43:25 [Kirk]
MSM: Reviews {Schema validation attempted}: Full, None, Partial.
13:47:26 [Kirk]
MSM: Where value is "None", no SML reference or constraints on references has not been checked. We depend on validation attempted, but schema validation does not.
13:56:00 [Kirk]
14:00:36 [Kirk]
Kirk has joined #sml
14:01:40 [Kirk]
MSM: It is important to distinguish between No errors because constraints are there and checked vs. No errors because nothing applied.
14:05:44 [Kirk]
Kumar: Root has to be valid, descendants not invalid (can be unknown).
14:06:47 [Kirk]
MSM: We should specify how schema processor should be initiated.
14:08:45 [Kirk]
MSM: Take case of SML model that is simply instance documents, with no schemas. This would be invalid because there is no root to be valid.
14:09:00 [Sandy]
Sandy has joined #sml
14:09:31 [Zakim]
14:21:58 [MSM-EDI]
overview of schema-validation assessment results:
14:32:52 [Kirk]
MSM: SOAP: well known case in which different parties are interested in parts of the document, but not whole document.
14:33:35 [Kirk]
...We have similar case.
14:39:09 [Kumar`]
Kumar` has joined #sml
14:41:05 [Kirk]
Kirk has joined #sml
14:41:39 [Kirk]
scribenick: Kirk
14:46:41 [johnarwe]
proposal from MSM:
14:46:42 [johnarwe]
SML validity entails NOT being Schema-INvalid on the root or any descendant.
14:46:42 [johnarwe]
14:46:42 [johnarwe]
SML validity can be non-vacuously checked only after Schema validity assessment, and only on the portions of the subtree for which PSVI is available.
14:46:42 [johnarwe]
14:46:43 [johnarwe]
Because the depth of PSVI is implementation-dependent, there is variability in the visibility of SML constraints available to the SML validator, and consequently in SML validity results.
14:48:47 [Kirk]
MSM: We should capture this in section 8, as a non-normative note.
14:55:26 [Kirk]
Sandy: Other thing: Schema validity on the node only. There is at least one case where we do not get what we expect.
14:59:13 [Kirk]
Kirk has joined #sml
15:02:30 [Kirk]
...Case of element name with same name as parent. If we don't have declaration of the parent, this may come out invalid when we would like it to be valid.
15:03:41 [Kirk]
Kumar: We have covered this case. We accommadate change from invalid to valid depending on type of processor.
15:05:38 [Kirk]
Kirk has joined #sml
15:08:30 [johnarwe]
for cmdbf federation we are talking about exchanging instances of resource models. those models must be extended over time, by new levels of the spec, vendor, customer company, customer LOB, ... The pt of cmdbf is to exchange those across vendors.
15:08:45 [Kirk]
Sandy: Case involves an parent and child of same name but different type, and we don't have the declaration of the parent.
15:11:30 [Kirk]
Sandy: In looking at all descendants, we may make models invalid that should be valid.
15:14:27 [Kirk]
Sandy: We might define SML model validity, talk only about validity of the root element; drop other language about checking children.
15:16:59 [Kirk]
Sandy: In Schema, you can look at the whole PSVI to determine what we want to do.
15:18:01 [Kirk]
MSM: Pefers stricter rule in order to guarantee interoperability. We should label the model invalid, rather than allow invalid nodes with root = valid.
15:25:17 [Sandy]
[lax: If the item has a uniquely determined declaration available, it must be ¡¤valid¡¤ with respect to that definition, that is, ¡¤validate¡¤ if you can, don't worry if you can't.]
15:25:53 [Kirk]
Ginny: In lax processing, validity would depend upon whether you have a schema or it.
15:27:41 [Kirk]
MSM: Issue is how do we handle elements further down in the tree for which we have declarations.
15:28:42 [Kirk]
Kumar: Suggestions we just state what is relationship without does say which definition is accepted.
15:30:14 [Kirk]
MSM: SML validity, clause 1,are underspecified becasue there are 4 ways of initiating schema validity processing. We need to say which one epxect.
15:30:57 [johnarwe]
(f2f) add as non-normative note the following to clarify relationship between sml validity and schema validity
15:30:57 [johnarwe]
15:30:57 [johnarwe]
SML validity entails NOT being Schema-INvalid on the root or any descendant.
15:30:57 [johnarwe]
15:30:57 [johnarwe]
SML validity can be non-vacuously checked only after Schema validity assessment, and only on the portions of the subtree for which PSVI is available.
15:30:59 [johnarwe]
15:31:01 [johnarwe]
Because the depth of PSVI is implementation-dependent, there is variability in the visibility of SML constraints available to the SML validator, and consequently in SML validity results.
15:31:38 [Kirk]
John: Does anyone has objections to adding this as a non-normative note in section 8?
15:31:53 [Kirk]
Ginny: We should define "non-vacuous".
15:35:57 [Kirk]
Kirk has joined #sml
15:37:04 [Kirk]
Sandy is think whether he want to open an issue regarding clause 1 in section 8 regarding whether we should look only at the {validity assessment} of the root.
15:37:39 [Kirk]
MSM: To think more about specifying validation needs in clause 1 of section 8.
15:39:18 [Kirk]
The decision, I believe, was to let you decide whether you want to open the issue.
15:41:19 [Kirk]
John: Change issue to Decided and Editorial. No objections.
15:42:34 [Kirk]
Kirk has joined #sml
15:43:06 [Kirk]
RESOLUTION: Change issue 5519 to Editorial and Decided.
15:43:38 [Kirk]
...Also Needs Review
15:45:58 [Kirk]
15:46:01 [MSM-EDI]
15:46:41 [Kirk]
MSM: Has produced a discussion paper. (Not as complete as he would have liked.)
15:49:13 [Kirk]
MSM: In looking at relative URI, he found a difficulties in Schema-Complete. This issue is not relevant here. Look at points 2 & 3 in the discussion.
15:53:33 [nick2]
nick2 has joined #sml
15:54:55 [nick2]
I am nick2
15:55:22 [nick2]
I am Kirk
15:56:42 [nick2]
John: MSM's point about schema-complete has to do with output to the calculation and input to the calculation.
15:57:49 [nick2]
scribnick: nick2
15:58:12 [nick2]
scribenick: nick2
15:59:01 [nick2]
ACTION: John to open bug on schema-complete definition.
15:59:01 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-199 - Open bug on schema-complete definition. [on John Arwe - due 2008-06-30].
15:59:40 [nick2]
Kumar: Questions need to have this issue.
16:06:03 [nick2]
Kumar: URI relative in reference scheme can be converted to a target-complete URI.
16:06:25 [Zakim]
16:08:59 [nick2]
MSM: Three claseses of reference: Don't use URI/ use URI that when absolutizing suffice, and those that use URIs that are not complete even when absolutizing (e.g., EPR reference schemes).
16:09:28 [Kirk]
Kirk has joined #sml
16:10:40 [Kirk]
scribenick: Kirk
16:11:10 [Kirk]
Moving on to section 2:
16:11:45 [Kirk]
MSM: Section 2 is still about point 3b.
16:12:44 [johnarwe]
16:13:26 [Kirk]
MSM: Sanity test: we can write a reference scheme that requires the use of absolutized URI.
16:16:08 [Kirk]
MSM: If this is implementation-dependent. But the writer of a reference scheme is not the implementation. This means the scheme author can't do that.
16:17:29 [Kirk]
MSM: It should be clear that a reference scheme is absolutized, but that is not accommodated by current definition.
16:18:49 [Kirk]
Kumar: If scheme author doesn't define why to absolutize it, then it is implementation-dependent.
16:24:12 [MSM-EDI]
Sandy: no, the schema author MUST define how to find the URI.
16:24:19 [MSM-EDI]
Kumar: yes, covered by point 2.
16:24:35 [MSM-EDI]
Sandy: if it's covered by point 2, then 3.b should refer to point 2.
16:25:09 [Sandy]
in 3.b. "if these ..., then the set of rules for resolving SML references to targets (see #2 above) MUST include what base URI to use for resolving reletive references to URIs or IRIs."
16:25:52 [Kirk]
Kirk has joined #sml
16:26:05 [Kirk]
scribenick: Kirk
16:27:16 [MSM-EDI]
or perhaps "MUST specify how to identify the base URI / IRI to use in resolving relative references ..."
16:27:57 [MSM-EDI]
or s/identify/determine/
16:28:35 [MSM-EDI]
RRSAgent, where am i?
16:28:35 [RRSAgent]
16:29:12 [Kirk]
John: If we specify that reference schemes can defined by authors, then should we say that definitions are implementation-dependent or implementation-defined.
16:31:27 [Kirk]
...Reference Author MUST define base URI. Issue: whether absolutizing URI is impl-dep or impl-defined.
16:31:48 [Kirk]
MSM: We should say "impl-define". Impl-dependent is useless.
16:32:54 [Kirk]
Scheme authors are required to say what base URI and where to find is no weaker than impl-defined. MUST NOT say imple-dependent.
16:36:23 [MSM-EDI]
concrete alternative would be s/MUST NOT/SHOULD NOT/
16:38:27 [johnarwe]
No objections to ref scheme authors MUST NOT say impl dep, and MUST say how base URIs are arrived at if they allow relative refs
16:42:40 [johnarwe]
16:44:32 [johnarwe_]
This is really Kirk typing.
16:45:09 [johnarwe_]
scribenick: johnarwe_
16:46:46 [johnarwe_]
MSM: We need to align relative URI/base URI with the relevant RFCs and XML specs.
16:51:26 [johnarwe_]
...Order of resolving relative URI: 1. Document entry, 2. Encapsulating entity, 3. Retrieval URI, 4. Default (implementation dependent)
16:52:09 [johnarwe_]
s/Document entry/Document content
16:53:53 [johnarwe_]
...Proposes use of [base URI] for Doc content, which is aligned with xml:base.
16:55:09 [johnarwe_]
John: Definition is about both SML and SML-IF. In SML, because SML URI Ref Scheme is defined there.
16:57:46 [johnarwe_]
MSM: Unclear in the spec. baseURI defined in <document> used in document; other wise use baseURI on <model>.
16:59:18 [johnarwe_]
...Not clear whether the <document> baseURI falls within Document content in the RFC 3986.
17:09:58 [johnarwe_]
...Use of <document> baseURI is like Doc content. Not sure whether this is the case for non-embedded documents.
17:13:08 [johnarwe_]
Ginny: We also use <model> baseURI as the URI taken from the encapsulating entity. We don't need the 3rd and 4th source.
17:18:36 [Zakim]
17:19:00 [MSM-EDI]
we just lost
17:19:23 [MSM-EDI]
we just lost phone connection
17:19:26 [MSM-EDI]
zakim, who is here?
17:19:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Sandy
17:19:27 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Kumar`, Sandy, ginny, johnarwe_, RRSAgent, MSM-EDI, Zakim, trackbot
17:19:57 [MSM-EDI]
we'll dial in again
17:20:01 [MSM-EDI]
unless you need to go
17:21:15 [Zakim]
17:21:27 [MSM-EDI]
zakim, ??P0 is Dunedin
17:21:27 [Zakim]
+Dunedin; got it
17:25:17 [johnarwe_]
MSM: We should say, that relative URI resolution should respect Doc content & encapsulting entity.
17:30:12 [Kumar`]
17:32:46 [Zakim]
17:37:46 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, Dunedin, in XML_SMLWG()3:00AM
17:37:49 [Zakim]
XML_SMLWG()3:00AM has ended
17:37:50 [Zakim]
Attendees were Dunedin, johnarwe, Kirk, Kumar, Ginny, MSM, yzhou, Sandy
17:41:34 [johnarwe_]
Kumar: Producer can use different baseURIs in SML-IF in order to point to the document in the SML-IF package. Producer can change the URL to the document as it exists on the Web.
17:43:36 [johnarwe_]
MSM: Considers this is bad idea. There is an accepted technology for using baseURI, and it would be best to follow this.
17:46:11 [johnarwe_]
MSM: We should require support for xml:base. If the authors use it, we should respect their use of xml:base. We also need to respect [baseURI].
18:11:16 [johnarwe_]
Kumar: Intranet addresses should be able to be changed in the SML-IF document because those addresses are private to the intranet.
18:11:30 [johnarwe_]
MSM and Kumar have a vigor discussion on this point.
18:11:48 [johnarwe_]
rssagent, make log public
18:12:08 [johnarwe_]
rssagent, generate minutes
18:20:46 [johnarwe_]
rrsagent, generate minutes
18:20:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate johnarwe_
18:20:56 [johnarwe_]
rrsagent, make log public
19:28:35 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sml