08:29:01 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sml
08:29:01 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-sml-irc
08:30:00 <Kumar> /invite rrsagent #sml
08:30:00 <Kumar> /invite zakim #sml
08:30:00 <Kumar> zakim, this will be SML
08:30:00 <Kumar> scribe: Kumar Pandit
08:30:00 <Zakim> ok, Kumar, I see XML_SMLWG()3:00AM already started
08:30:03 <Kumar> scribenick: kumar
08:30:07 <Kumar> meeting: SML WG f2f Meeting
08:30:10 <Kumar> chair: John
08:30:13 <Kumar>  
08:30:22 <Kirk2> Kirk2 has joined #sml
08:33:45 <johnarwe_> http://www.w3.org/XML/2008/06/sml-bug5542.xml
08:35:25 <Kirk2> Kirk2 has joined #sml
08:41:13 <Kumar> topic: action items
08:44:26 <Kumar> kumar: I will start email discussion for 5680
08:45:00 <Kumar> ginny: Let us discuss 5760.
08:45:32 <yzhou> yzhou has joined #sml
08:46:30 <Kumar> ginny: we should use 'target' to mean 0 or 1 element. 
08:46:58 <Kumar> ginny: and fix other text to match this definition.
08:50:42 <Kumar> ginny: do others agree with this concept?
08:50:56 <Kumar> kumar, kirk, john: yes
08:53:38 <Kumar> ginny: I will write a proposal for changes based on the concept.
08:58:01 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5707
09:05:50 <johnarwe_> proposal: editor's draft 4.3.1 2 b currently reads 
09:05:51 <johnarwe_> A document is obtained by dereferencing the URI reference ignoring any fragment component, using the appropriate operation defined for the URI scheme used in that URI reference. If it does not retrieve a document in the current model, the SML URI Reference Scheme instance is unresolved.
09:05:55 <johnarwe_> change to
09:07:56 <johnarwe_> A document is obtained by one of the following methods. If a document in the current model does not result, the SML URI Reference Scheme instance is unresolved. (2.b.1) by recognizing that the relative reference is a same-document reference (2.b.2) by dereferencing the URI reference ignoring any fragment component, using the appropriate operation defined for the URI scheme used in that URI reference. 
09:09:45 <Kirk> Kirk has joined #sml
09:10:52 <johnarwe_> Kumar notes that 2nd proposed sentence could be part of 2.b.2 , Arwe agrees
09:18:45 <Kumar> john: does everyone agree with the proposed text above?
09:18:53 <Kumar> kumar, kirk, ginny: yes
09:20:34 <johnarwe_> next piece of 5707, smlif 5.3.4 1 a
09:20:50 <johnarwe_> proposal: change from If UR contains only a fragment component,
09:21:00 <johnarwe_> to If UR contains only a same-document reference,
09:21:25 <johnarwe_> If UR is only a same-document reference,
09:24:54 <Kumar> john: does everyone agree with the proposed text above?
09:24:59 <Kumar> kumar, kirk, ginny: yes
09:27:13 <Kumar> resolution: mark editorial. fix as proposed in comment# 4
09:29:25 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5760
09:33:06 <Kumar> resolution: proposal in comment# 1 rejected. ginny to make the editorial changes based on the concept target== 0 or 1 element. mark needsReview after changes.
09:34:39 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5656
09:42:43 <Kumar> kirk: currently the set of rules aimed at scheme writers do not include information that says how that scheme behaves in the sml-if context.
09:42:50 <Kumar> kirk: we should add such info.
09:46:36 <Kumar> ginny: I am not convinced that we should change the SMl spec to add this text.
09:47:51 <Kumar> kumar: we do not define such rules even for the SML URI scheme therefore we should avoid defining such text for user defined schemes.
09:48:34 <Kumar> john: we could add such text to sml-if.
09:50:00 <Kumar> ginny: but that text should not be called 'requirements on user defined schemes' because then we would need to change the sml spec.
09:53:42 <Kirk> Kirk has joined #sml
09:59:47 <johnarwe_> proposal to hack at
09:59:55 <johnarwe_> f2f consensus 
09:59:55 <johnarwe_>  
09:59:55 <johnarwe_> SMLIF 4.5 item 4 
09:59:55 <johnarwe_>  
09:59:55 <johnarwe_> The SML-IF document may use references schemes that do not use target-complete identifiers.  In addition to the requirements imposed by SML on reference scheme definitions, SML-IF imposes additional requirements on references schemes that do not use target-complete identifiers in order to make them useful in the context of SML-IF [5.3.4 discussion of category 3]. 
10:00:00 <johnarwe_>  
10:00:01 <johnarwe_> SMLIF 5.3.4 end, after category 1 & 2 URI processing 
10:00:03 <johnarwe_>  
10:00:06 <johnarwe_> To process a URI reference UR that is within category #3 above, a set of steps corresponding to those described above for categories #1 and #2 MUST be defined as part of the reference scheme definition. 
10:07:32 <Kumar> resolution: the text above is approved. add the text to appropriate sections in smlif. mark editorial. 
10:22:49 <Kirk> Kirk has joined #sml
10:32:40 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5657
10:39:40 <johnarwe_> proposal as discussed: smlif 5.4.1 final sentence
10:39:45 <johnarwe_> from: implementation-dependent and hence outside the scope of
10:39:45 <johnarwe_>   this specification.
10:39:53 <johnarwe_> to: impl-defined.
10:40:49 <johnarwe_> s/5.4.1/6.4.1/
10:40:53 <johnarwe_> chg also reqd in 6.1
10:58:53 <Kirk2> Kirk2 has joined #sml
11:00:06 <Kirk2> Kirk2 is Kirk
11:02:08 <Kirk2> Kirk2 has joined #sml
11:03:14 <johnarwe_> f2f consensus 
11:03:14 <johnarwe_>  
11:03:14 <johnarwe_> item 1 - covered by 5635 
11:03:14 <johnarwe_> item 2 - agree with proposal in this bug, no changes 
11:03:14 <johnarwe_> item 3 - agree with proposal in this bug 
11:03:15 <johnarwe_> item 4 - agree with proposal, change both sections, amended text 
11:03:17 <johnarwe_>  
11:03:19 <johnarwe_> from: implementation-dependent and hence outside the scope of this specification. 
11:03:21 <johnarwe_> to  : implementation-defined. 
11:03:23 <johnarwe_>  
11:03:25 <johnarwe_> item 5 - leave as impl-defined 
11:03:27 <johnarwe_>  
11:03:29 <johnarwe_> Working group chose to err, if an error has been made, on the side of requiring the behavior to be documented. 
11:04:24 <Kumar> resolution: accept item# 2 (retain current uses of impl. defined), accept item #3, accept item# 4 (+remove ...hence outside...), accept item# 5
11:04:51 <ht> ht has joined #sml
11:05:51 <johnarwe_> Working group chose to come down on the side of requiring the behavior to be documented.
11:06:58 <Kumar> resolution: mark editorial
11:09:21 <ht> zakim, who is on the phone?
11:09:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
11:10:34 <Zakim> XML_SMLWG()3:00AM has ended
11:10:35 <Zakim> Attendees were 
11:50:35 <ht> ht has joined #sml
11:55:30 <Kirk> Kirk has joined #sml
11:58:25 <johnarwe_> johnarwe_ has joined #sml
11:58:26 <Kumar> Kumar has joined #sml
11:59:11 <johnarwe_> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2007/xml/sml/build/sml.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
12:01:15 <johnarwe_> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2007/xml/sml/build/sml-if.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
12:03:01 <julia> julia has joined #sml
12:03:22 <Zakim> restarting in 1 minute to recover hardware state
12:03:59 <Zakim> XML_SMLWG()3:00AM has now started
12:07:51 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sml
12:09:06 <ht> zakim, who is on the phone
12:09:06 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', ht
12:09:11 <ht> zakim, who is on the phone?
12:09:11 <Zakim> sorry, ht, I don't know what conference this is
12:09:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see julia, Kumar, johnarwe_, Kirk, ht, RRSAgent, ginny, MSM, trackbot
12:09:27 <johnarwe_> zakim, this is sml
12:09:27 <Zakim> ok, johnarwe_; that matches XML_SMLWG()3:00AM
12:09:28 <ht> zakim, this is sml
12:09:28 <Zakim> ht, this was already XML_SMLWG()3:00AM
12:09:30 <Zakim> ok, ht; that matches XML_SMLWG()3:00AM
12:09:43 <ht> zakim, who is on the phone?
12:09:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.919.227.aaaa, ??P6
12:09:53 <julia> zakim, aaaa is me
12:09:53 <Zakim> +julia; got it
12:10:06 <johnarwe_> zakim, ??p6 is Edinburgh
12:10:06 <Zakim> +Edinburgh; got it
12:10:31 <ht> zakim, edinburgh has johnarwe_, ginny, ht, Kumar, Kirk
12:10:31 <Zakim> +johnarwe_, ginny, ht, Kumar, Kirk; got it
12:11:33 <Kumar> topic: review Pratul's bug list with Henry
12:11:43 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5522
12:12:17 <johnarwe_> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5522
12:19:14 <Kumar> john: we made the change Henry requested.
12:20:47 <Kumar> henry: I am happy with the fix.
12:21:58 <johnarwe_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Jun/0081.html
12:26:14 <johnarwe_> Jan 4.3.1.1 http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-sml-20080114/#SMLXPath1_Scheme
12:27:53 <Kumar> resolution: remove decide, add reviewerSatisfied
12:28:09 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5541
12:33:03 <Kumar> henry: I am happy with the fix.
12:33:37 <Kumar> resolution: remove decided, add reviewerSatisfied
12:34:58 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5513
12:43:05 <Kumar> henry: Given the overall architecture, depending literal _or_ implicit sml:ref to
12:43:06 <Kumar> signal the _existence_ of an SML reference is reasonable, so I agree that the
12:43:06 <Kumar> xlink:href issue can be dealt with separately, and I'm happy for this bug to be
12:43:06 <Kumar> closed.
12:43:53 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5529
12:53:06 <Kumar> henry I'm happy that the additional text in Appendix C removes the apparent contradiction.
12:53:25 <Kumar> resolution: add reviewerSatisfied
12:53:40 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5545
13:10:32 <Sandy> Sandy has joined #sml
13:17:05 <johnarwe_> 3.2 Shorthand Pointer 
13:17:05 <johnarwe_>  
13:17:05 <johnarwe_> A shorthand pointer, formerly known as a barename, consists of an NCName alone. It identifies at most one element in the resource's information set; specifically, the first one (if any) in document order that has a matching NCName as an identifier. The identifiers of an element are determined as follows: 
13:17:05 <johnarwe_>  
13:17:06 <johnarwe_>    1. 
13:17:08 <johnarwe_>  
13:17:10 <johnarwe_>       If an element information item has an attribute information item among its [attributes] that is a schema-determined ID, then it is identified by the value of that attribute information item's [schema normalized value] property; 
13:17:14 <johnarwe_>    2. 
13:17:16 <johnarwe_>  
13:17:18 <johnarwe_>       If an element information item has an element information item among its [children] that is a schema-determined ID, then it is identified by the value of that element information item's [schema normalized value] property; 
13:17:21 <johnarwe_>    3. 
13:17:23 <johnarwe_>  
13:17:25 <johnarwe_>       If an element information item has an attribute information item among its [attributes] that is a DTD-determined ID, then it is identified by the value of that attribute information item's [normalized value] property. 
13:17:28 <johnarwe_>    4. 
13:17:30 <johnarwe_>  
13:17:32 <johnarwe_>       An element information item may also be identified by an externally-determined ID value. 
13:17:35 <johnarwe_>  
13:17:36 <johnarwe_> If no element information item is identified by a shorthand pointer's NCName, the pointer is in error.
13:19:45 <Zakim> +Sandy
13:20:27 <Kirk> Kirk has joined #sml
13:22:42 <julia> julia has joined #sml
13:24:07 <Kumar> henry: So, we end up with two remaining points here, possibly also addressed elsewhere.
13:24:08 <Kumar>  
13:24:08 <Kumar> Wrt the media type issue, I am happy that the current state of the text clarifies that this is effectively a coherence check on SML URI Reference scheme references.
13:24:08 <Kumar>  
13:24:11 <Kumar> Wrt the fragid issue, the thing I really care about is barenames, I'll accede to closing this issue (5545) and make a final comment about this concern under 5543.
13:24:14 <Kumar>  
13:30:29 <Kumar> action: henry to describe what processing a minimally conforming xml processor must do wrt ID processing.
13:30:29 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - henry
13:31:09 <Kumar> action: john to ask henry to describe what processing a minimally conforming xml processor must do wrt ID processing.
13:31:10 <trackbot> Created ACTION-200 - Ask henry to describe what processing a minimally conforming xml processor must do wrt ID processing. [on John Arwe - due 2008-07-01].
13:31:12 <ht> ht has joined #sml
13:31:36 <Kumar> resolution: add reviewerSatisfied
13:32:19 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5520
13:36:46 <Kumar> henry: I am happy that the text which has been added addresses my concern
13:37:17 <Kumar> resolution: mark as reviewerSatisfied
13:37:26 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5523
13:51:20 <Kumar> henry: I am happy with the resolution.
13:52:36 <Kirk> Kirk has joined #sml
13:52:46 <Kumar> resolution: mark as reviewerSatisfied
13:57:07 <johnarwe_> http://www.w3.org/XML/2008/06/sml-bug5542.xml
14:02:28 <ht> ht has joined #sml
14:02:44 <Kirk2> Kirk2 has joined #sml
14:03:23 <ht> What was my bug-to-close as I left?
14:08:05 <johnarwe_> 5523
14:10:02 <Kirk2> Kirk2 has joined #sml
14:11:05 <johnarwe_> text from infoset rec
14:11:06 <johnarwe_> Base URIs 
14:11:06 <johnarwe_>  
14:11:06 <johnarwe_> Several information items have a [base URI] or [declaration base URI] property. These are computed according to [XML Base]. Note that retrieval of a resource may involve redirection at the parser level (for example, in an entity resolver) or below; in this case the base URI is the final URI used to retrieve the resource after all redirection. 
14:11:06 <johnarwe_>  
14:11:08 <johnarwe_> The value of these properties does not reflect any URI escaping that may be required for retrieval of the resource, but it may include escaped characters if these were specified in the document, or returned by a server in the case of redirection. 
14:11:12 <johnarwe_>  
14:11:14 <johnarwe_> In some cases (such as a document read from a string or a pipe) the rules in [XML Base] may result in a base URI being application dependent. In these cases this specification does not define the value of the [base URI] or [declaration base URI] property. 
14:11:18 <johnarwe_>  
14:11:20 <johnarwe_> When resolving relative URIs the [base URI] property should be used in preference to the values of xml:base attributes; they may be inconsistent in the case of Synthetic Infosets. 
14:17:59 <johnarwe_> schema 1.0 refers to 2001 infoset spec which says: Base URIs 
14:17:59 <johnarwe_>  
14:17:59 <johnarwe_> Several information items have a [base URI] property. This is computed according to [XML Base]. Note that retrieval of a resource may involve redirection at the parser level (for example, in an entity resolver) or below; in this case the base URI is the final URI used to retrieve the resource after all redirection. 
14:17:59 <johnarwe_> ``Unknown'' and ``N
14:41:13 <Kirk> Kirk has joined #sml
14:41:50 <johnarwe_> proposed normative addition to sml 4.1.1: It is implementation-defined whether non-validating SML processors (SML processors that are not also SML validators) use the XML Infoset [XML Information  
14:41:50 <johnarwe_> Set] or the Post Schema Validation Infoset (PSVI) [XML Schema Structures] for  
14:41:50 <johnarwe_> SML reference identification. 
14:44:02 <johnarwe_> 04 01proposed normative addition to sml 4.1.1: It is implementation-defined whether SML model processors that are not also SML model validators use the XML Infoset [XML Information  
14:44:02 <johnarwe_>  Set] or the Post Schema Validation Infoset (PSVI) [XML Schema Structures] for  
14:44:02 <johnarwe_>  SML reference identification.
14:46:04 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5740
14:47:08 <Kumar> resolution: split the note in 4.1.1. Add the proposed text above between the 2 notes. mark editorial.
14:47:52 <johnarwe_> going into bug, ok? F2F consensus: add following text to 4.1.1 SML Reference, as normative, between existing Notes 1 and 2. 
14:47:52 <johnarwe_>  
14:47:52 <johnarwe_> It is implementation-defined whether non-validating model processors that are not also model validators use the XML Infoset [XML Information   
14:47:52 <johnarwe_>  Set] or the Post Schema Validation Infoset (PSVI) [XML Schema Structures] for   
14:47:53 <johnarwe_>  SML reference identification.
14:50:46 <Kumar> topic: bug# 5653
15:01:13 <johnarwe_> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#concepts-conformance
15:03:01 <Kumar> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/
15:06:47 <johnarwe_> 5653, comment 2, part (2), revised proposal
15:06:50 <johnarwe_> from: assessed by a conforming schema-aware       processor
15:09:39 <johnarwe_> to: from: assessed by a conforming schema aware processor [link to XML Schema Structures 2.4]
15:11:28 <Kirk> Kirk has joined #sml
15:17:03 <pratul> pratul has joined #sml
15:17:41 <johnarwe_> revised proposal from Ginny: In each instance document in the model, the [validity] property of the root element and all of its attributes and descendants MUST NOT be "invalid" when schema validity is assessed with respect to the referenced XML Schema documents in the model's definition documents. [XML Schema Structures]
15:18:52 <Zakim> -Sandy
15:23:21 <johnarwe_> revised defs: SML-IF Producer  
15:23:21 <johnarwe_>    A SML-IF Producer is a program that generates a SML-IF Document from a SML 
15:23:21 <johnarwe_> model [Conformance]. 
15:23:21 <johnarwe_> SML-IF Consumer  
15:23:21 <johnarwe_>    A SML-IF Consumer is a program that processes a SML-IF Document using, in 
15:23:22 <johnarwe_> whole or part, semantics defined by this specification.  It MAY perform 
15:23:24 <johnarwe_> interchange set validation [Conformance]. 
15:27:59 <johnarwe_> SML-IF Producer  
15:27:59 <johnarwe_>    A SML-IF Producer is a program that generates a SML-IF Document from a SML 
15:27:59 <johnarwe_> model. 
15:27:59 <johnarwe_>  
15:27:59 <johnarwe_> SML-IF Consumer  
15:28:00 <johnarwe_>    A SML-IF Consumer is a program that processes a SML-IF Document using, in 
15:28:02 <johnarwe_> whole or part, semantics defined by this specification.  It may or may not perform 
15:28:05 <johnarwe_> interchange set validation. 
15:29:16 <johnarwe_> The editors may wish to search for unqualified "consumer" uses that readers 
15:29:16 <johnarwe_> would find ambiguous.  There are at least a few unqualified uses in normative 
15:29:16 <johnarwe_> sections of the current editor's draft.
15:36:23 <ginny> When performing interchange model validation over the SML model packaged in an
15:36:24 <ginny> SML-IF instance, an SML-IF consumer must draw associations between XML Schema definition documents and
15:36:25 <ginny> instance documents, both to completely validate XML Schema
15:36:27 <ginny> documents themselves and to establish the schema-validity of the instance
15:36:29 <ginny> documents.
15:40:03 <Kumar> resolution: mark editorial, does not need review
15:54:39 <Zakim> -julia
15:54:43 <Zakim> -Edinburgh
15:54:44 <Zakim> XML_SMLWG()3:00AM has ended
15:54:45 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.919.227.aaaa, julia, johnarwe_, ginny, ht, Kumar, Kirk, Sandy
16:03:04 <johnarwe_> rrsagent, make log public
16:03:10 <johnarwe_> rrsagent, generate minutes
16:03:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/24-sml-minutes.html johnarwe_
16:06:13 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sml
16:06:45 <julia> julia has left #sml
16:10:32 <Kumar> kumar: question for msm: I have a question regarding bug# 5797 that you opened. Does the schema spec require all schema processors to expose the 4 modes of initiating validity assessment mentioned in the bug?
16:12:01 <MSM> no
16:12:52 <MSM> but this is not an area where it makes sense for us to say "whatever" -- the meaning of our definition is incomplete if we don't say what form of validation we are talking about.
16:13:28 <johnarwe_> is there a specific section of the structures spec that talks about the options an which might be rqd?
16:14:09 <Kumar> kumar: that is true in principle. however, if we pick one of the 4 options and if either the MS schema processor or the cosmos schema processor does not support it then we will have a problem with CR interop.
16:14:23 <MSM> 1.1 makes explicit the assumptions which also govern 1.0.  It says in section 5.2 "conforming processors may but are not required to provide interfaces so that they can be invoked in ways consistent with any or all of these approaches."
16:14:45 <MSM> we'll have even more trouble with interop if we don't specify what 'valid' means
16:15:32 <MSM> If we need to make the decision based on examining the schema processors the two projects are using and seeing which modes of invocation they offer, then let's do that
16:16:11 <Kirk> Kirk has joined #sml
16:16:28 <MSM> personally, i'll be rather surprised if they don't both offer wildcard validation mode
16:17:15 <MSM> (and as I mentioned yesterday, strict and lax wildcard modes are identical from the valdator's pov -- the different terms only signal different expectations from the caller (here: us)
16:17:44 <MSM> for the relevant text of both XSD 1.0 and 1.1:  http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-xmlschema11-1-20080620/structures.diff-1.0.html#validation_outcome
16:22:54 <ht_home> ht_home has joined #sml
16:23:11 <ht_home> John, you still there?
16:23:25 <johnarwe_> yupper
16:23:27 <johnarwe_> sup
16:23:28 <ht_home> Tomorrow morning is fine -- say 0930?
16:23:41 <ht_home> Yes, I agree, supper time soon :-)
16:25:23 <johnarwe_> if you become available then fine... we have a mix of early/late risers, so we plan to start at 0830 on some bugs we can handle purely w/in the wg.  If 0900 is possible that might be better, insofar as we need to get through base uri before MSM leaves around 1030 for his flight to finland ("...finland, finland, the country where I quite want to be.."O
16:25:59 <johnarwe_> but if 0900 is a stretch, an hour might let us squeak by
16:26:32 <ht_home> I will make it as soon after 0900 as I can
16:26:38 <johnarwe_> ah, if we have 2 hrs w/ MSM I suspect 0930 for Henry would be great - sup-ah
17:25:19 <MSM> John? ready to head out for supper?
17:27:44 <johnarwe_> sdflkj