IRC log of sml on 2008-08-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:03:02 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sml
18:03:02 [RRSAgent]
logging to
18:03:19 [Sandy]
zakim, this is sml
18:03:19 [Zakim]
ok, Sandy; that matches XML_SMLWG()2:00PM
18:03:37 [Zakim]
18:04:49 [johnarwe_]
zakim, aabb is me
18:04:49 [Zakim]
+johnarwe_; got it
18:05:15 [johnarwe_]
zakim, aaaa is Julia
18:05:15 [Zakim]
+Julia; got it
18:05:28 [Zakim]
18:05:51 [pratul]
Zakim, Microsoft is me
18:05:52 [Zakim]
+pratul; got it
18:06:07 [Kumar]
Kumar has joined #sml
18:06:19 [Zakim]
+ +1.425.836.aacc
18:06:28 [Kumar]
zakim, aacc is me
18:06:28 [Zakim]
+Kumar; got it
18:06:55 [ginny]
meeting: W3C SML Teleconference of 2008-xx-xx
18:06:57 [ginny]
scribe: Virginia Smith
18:06:58 [ginny]
scribenick: ginny
18:07:00 [ginny]
chair: Pratul
18:07:02 [ginny]
18:07:04 [ginny]
regrets: Jim
18:07:37 [ginny]
zakim, who's here?
18:07:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Julia, johnarwe_, Sandy, Ginny_Smith, pratul, Kumar
18:07:38 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Kumar, RRSAgent, ginny, Zakim, pratul, Sandy, Kirk, johnarwe_, julia, MSM, trackbot
18:07:38 [ginny]
zakim, list attendees
18:07:38 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been +1.919.227.aaaa, +1.845.433.aabb, Sandy, Ginny_Smith, johnarwe_, Julia, pratul, +1.425.836.aacc, Kumar
18:07:40 [ginny]
rrsagent, generate minutes
18:07:40 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ginny
18:07:41 [ginny]
rrsagent, make log public
18:09:40 [ginny]
Topic: Approval of minutes of 7/31 call
18:09:42 [ginny]
RESOLUTION: approved
18:09:52 [ginny]
18:10:11 [ginny]
Topic: Bug 5543
18:11:07 [ginny]
Pratul: Kumar sent an email to the member list with the working group's position; any objections or changes to this?
18:13:03 [ginny]
Sandy: ok but would prefer to reword 2nd to last paragraph - "we expect..."
18:18:16 [MSM]
zakim, please call MSM-617
18:18:16 [Zakim]
ok, MSM; the call is being made
18:18:18 [Zakim]
18:19:48 [ginny]
Pratul: extending schema is part of our charter
18:21:09 [ginny]
Kumar: should we add a sentence to reflect this?
18:22:05 [ginny]
Pratul: our core scenario is extension of schema
18:22:07 [ginny]
Kumar: can also add that we don't want to block DTD
18:23:13 [Zakim]
+ +1.603.823.aadd
18:23:31 [johnarwe_]
zakim, aadd is Kirk
18:23:31 [Zakim]
+Kirk; got it
18:24:29 [Kirk]
Kirk has joined #sml
18:26:54 [Kumar]
The SML group’s charter is to standardize extensions to the XML Schema, therefore the group’s focus is on supporting scenarios where XML schema combined with Schematron rules is used to validate a model. However, the group recognizes that there may be some cases where XML schema is not used at all. The group does not want to go out of the way and forbid such cases.
18:26:54 [Kumar]
18:26:54 [Kumar]
SML constraints can only be specified as a part of XML schema. When model has only DTDs, there cannot be SML constraints present. This is not the mainstream use-case for SML models. We expect majority of SML models to include XML schemas (with or without SML constraints) because XML schema validation is an integral part of SML model validity assessment and XML schemas are the only means of defining SML constraints. Due to implementation
18:26:57 [Kumar]
and schedule constraints, we would like to allow but not require DTD ID support for this case. We believe this will have minimal impact on the users of SML because most SML models will use XML Schemas for validation.
18:27:00 [Kumar]
18:27:02 [Kumar]
18:31:18 [ginny]
RESOLUTION: Working group agrees to changes as suggested by Kumar above. Kumar to send update to member email list.
18:34:22 [ginny]
18:35:26 [ginny]
Topic: Bug 5524
18:36:14 [Kirk2]
Kirk2 has joined #sml
18:37:04 [ginny]
RESOLUTION: mark bug as fixed
18:38:21 [ginny]
Topic: Bug 5636
18:38:28 [johnarwe_]
looks fine to me
18:39:56 [julia]
julia has left #sml
18:44:14 [ginny]
RESOLUTION: mark bug as fixed
18:44:49 [ginny]
Topic: Bug 5760
18:51:28 [ginny]
RESOLUTION: mark bug as fixed
18:53:04 [ginny]
Topic: Bug 5902
18:54:02 [MSM]
+1 to SG's implicit proposal
18:54:30 [ginny]
18:54:39 [johnarwe_]
the implicit proposal being to add a similar stmt for nilref wrt psvi as we currently have for sml:ref
18:56:17 [ginny]
RESOLUTION: make proposed change; mark editorial, no needsReview
18:58:33 [ginny]
Topic: Bug 5908
19:00:07 [ginny]
Sandy's proposal is "both <namespaceBinding> and <documentAlias> should be '*', that is
19:00:09 [ginny]
minOccurs=0, maxOccurs=unbounded."
19:00:41 [ginny]
Pseudo-schema and normative schema must be changed to agree with this proposal.
19:04:15 [ginny]
RESOLUTION: make proposed change; mark as editorial, no needsReview
19:05:18 [ginny]
Topic: Bug 5922
19:07:17 [MSM]
[I think the noise was from me]
19:08:58 [MSM]
[I think also it's convenient to have an explicit no-binding construct so that I can have a default schema binding for most documents, but still exclude a few documents by saying "no schema for this one"]
19:10:36 [ginny]
If a processor does not process schemabindings then no change is necessary with this proposal.
19:12:43 [ginny]
Proposal is to "add a new <noSchemaBinding> sub element under <schemaBindings>.
19:12:45 [ginny]
It contains any number of <documentAlias> elements. If an instance document
19:12:47 [ginny]
matches one of the <documentAlias>, then the default schema doesn't apply to
19:12:48 [ginny]
19:14:41 [ginny]
Kumar: if a model contains instance doc a, b, c then it is not possible to specify that c is not bound to a schema?
19:15:31 [ginny]
"If an SML-IF consumer chooses to process the schemaBindings element and if the
19:15:33 [ginny]
optional defaultSchema element is present, then an SML-IF consumer MUST
19:15:35 [ginny]
compose a default schema from this element following rules 1 to 3 above,
19:15:37 [ginny]
replacing SB in the text with DS (i.e., the /model/schemaBindings/defaultSchema
19:15:39 [ginny]
element). Otherwise, an SML-IF consumers MUST compose a default schema using
19:15:41 [ginny]
*all* schema documents included in the SML-IF document. An SML-IF consumer MUST
19:15:42 [ginny]
use this default schema to validate those SML instance documents that are not
19:15:44 [ginny]
included in any schemaBinding."
19:15:58 [ginny]
s/"If/SML-IF states that "If/
19:18:38 [julia]
julia has joined #sml
19:18:45 [ginny]
discussion of whether the 'otherwise' applies to 1st 'if' on previous sentence or to both 'ifs' in previous sentence.
19:25:30 [MSM]
One alternative: "If the consumer does not process schemaBindings, OR if the optional defaultSchema element is absent, then ..." (this is equivalent to what JA just said.)
19:29:06 [ginny]
Proposal now has 2 parts: the noSchemaBinding element and rewording the 'otherwise' as above.
19:31:18 [MSM]
[I think leaving to the editors the choice between the alternative above and "Otherwise (if ... or if ...)" is the Right Thing. Editors, work it out.]
19:31:27 [Zakim]
19:32:17 [ginny]
Proposal is: 1) to "add a new <noSchemaBinding> sub element under <schemaBindings>.
19:32:19 [ginny]
It contains any number of <documentAlias> elements. If an instance document
19:32:21 [ginny]
matches one of the <documentAlias>, then the default schema doesn't apply to
19:32:22 [Zakim]
19:32:23 [ginny]
it." and 2) reword 'otherwise'
19:34:10 [ginny]
s/otherwise'/otherwise' per the John's and MSM's comments above/
19:34:19 [ginny]
19:35:03 [ginny]
RESOLUTION: fix as proposed; mark editorial then needsReview
19:36:52 [ginny]
Topic: Bug 5923
19:36:54 [ginny]
Proposal is: "2a For each XML Schema document in the model's definition documents, the
19:36:56 [ginny]
[validity] property of the root element MUST be "valid" when schema validity is
19:36:58 [ginny]
assessed with respect to a schema constructed from the "schema for schemas" and
19:37:00 [ginny]
the "normative SML schema" schema documents.
19:37:02 [ginny]
2b All schemas assembled from the XML Schema documents in the model's
19:37:03 [ginny]
definition documents MUST satisfy the conditions expressed in Errors in Schema
19:37:05 [ginny]
Construction and Structure (§5.1). [XML Schema Structures]
19:37:07 [ginny]
Note: This specification does not define how many schemas are assembled and
19:37:09 [ginny]
which schema documents contribute to assembling the schemas."
19:37:30 [ginny]
(Replace bullet 2 with proposal above.)
19:40:25 [ginny]
RESOLUTION: fix as proposed; mark editorial and then needsReview
19:41:36 [ginny]
rrsagent, generate minutes
19:41:36 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ginny
19:41:37 [ginny]
Topic: Bug 5924
19:42:01 [julia]
I am leaving now. Bye.
19:42:05 [julia]
julia has left #sml
19:44:29 [Zakim]
19:45:28 [ginny]
Sandy: if there is a problem in the 'metadata' then the model should be non-conformant.
19:45:44 [ginny]
as opposed to invalid.
19:47:39 [ginny]
Ginny: seems to be the general consensus
19:51:49 [ginny]
The general case references the sections labeled "schema component rules" and possibly "schema constraint construction". We can construct the general conformance statement referencing these section titles.
19:52:04 [ginny]
19:52:42 [ginny]
RESOLUTION: fix per proposed using the general case of the section titles as mentioned above; mark as editorial and then needsReview
19:54:22 [Sandy]
and "SML Rule Contruction"
19:55:06 [ginny]
Topic: Bug 5925
19:56:32 [ginny]
Proposal is: ""1. In each instance document in the model, the [validity] property of the root
19:56:34 [ginny]
element and all of its attributes and descendants MUST NOT be "invalid" when
19:56:35 [ginny]
schema validity is assessed with respect to any schema that is bound to this
19:56:37 [ginny]
instance document. [XML Schema Structures]
19:56:39 [ginny]
Note: How schemas are bound to instance document is not defined by this
19:56:41 [ginny]
specification. Multiple schemas may be bound to the same instance document.""
19:58:27 [johnarwe_] is related
19:59:11 [MSM]
I don't want to insist or even suggest that everything be done at once, only to make sure the editors don't inadvertently overwrite one change while making the other.
19:59:34 [ginny]
John: This bug intersects with 5797 with regard to the non-normative note.
19:59:50 [ginny]
RESOLUTION: fix as proposed; mark editorial and then needsReview
20:01:01 [Zakim]
20:01:01 [ginny]
zakim, list attendees
20:01:02 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been +1.919.227.aaaa, +1.845.433.aabb, Sandy, Ginny_Smith, johnarwe_, Julia, pratul, +1.425.836.aacc, Kumar, MSM, +1.603.823.aadd, Kirk
20:01:02 [Zakim]
20:01:03 [ginny]
rrsagent, generate minutes
20:01:03 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ginny
20:01:05 [Zakim]
20:01:16 [Zakim]
20:01:17 [Zakim]
20:01:50 [Zakim]
20:03:17 [Zakim]
20:03:18 [Zakim]
XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended
20:03:19 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.919.227.aaaa, +1.845.433.aabb, Sandy, Ginny_Smith, johnarwe_, Julia, pratul, +1.425.836.aacc, Kumar, MSM, +1.603.823.aadd, Kirk
20:07:30 [johnarwe_]
johnarwe_ has left #sml
22:13:03 [MSM]
MSM has joined #sml
23:14:08 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sml