18:01:44 RRSAgent has joined #sml 18:01:44 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/08/21-sml-irc 18:02:11 pratul has joined #sml 18:02:19 +Sandy 18:02:36 + +1.845.433.aabb 18:03:14 meeting: W3C SML Teleconference of 2008-08-21 18:03:17 zakim, 1.845 is JArwe 18:03:17 sorry, MSM, I do not recognize a party named '1.845' 18:03:26 zakim, +1.845 is JArwe 18:03:26 +JArwe; got it 18:03:34 Topic is SML WG Teleconference 18:03:48 Agenda at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Aug/0066.html 18:03:51 zakim, who's here? 18:03:51 On the phone I see Kirk, MSM, Sandy, JArwe 18:03:53 On IRC I see pratul, RRSAgent, Sandy, Kirk, Zakim, MSM, trackbot 18:04:01 scribenick: Kirk 18:04:04 johnarwe_ has joined #sml 18:04:12 Scribe: Kirk Wilson 18:04:15 +[Microsoft] 18:04:24 Zakim, Microsoft is me 18:04:24 +pratul; got it 18:04:26 Chair: John Arwe 18:06:45 Kumar has joined #sml 18:07:07 regrets: Julia, 18:07:27 + +1.425.836.aacc 18:07:34 zakim, aacc is me 18:07:34 +Kumar; got it 18:07:44 ginny has joined #sml 18:08:36 +Ginny_Smith 18:10:21 zakim, who's here? 18:10:21 On the phone I see Kirk, MSM, Sandy, JArwe, pratul, Kumar, Ginny_Smith 18:10:22 On IRC I see ginny, Kumar, johnarwe_, pratul, RRSAgent, Sandy, Kirk, Zakim, MSM, trackbot 18:12:15 Chair: Pratul Dublish 18:12:41 TOPIC: Approval of minutes for 8-14 18:12:49 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Aug/att-0054/20080814-sml-minutes.html 18:13:16 Meetings of 8-14 call is approved without objection. 18:14:15 TOPIC: Issue 5543: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5543 18:15:00 Kumar has created a diff and Sandy had comments. 18:16:41 Pratul: Are these changes substantial or can be consider them editorial and move on? 18:17:10 MSM: We need to deal with Sandy's point #1 regarding an apparent contradiction. 18:17:26 Kumar: I agree with point #1. 18:19:24 Sandy: Point #2 doesn't have to fixed before LC. 18:20:30 new text for c.ii: If the fragment component complies with the Shorthand Pointer syntax, then the reference target is the element identified based on XML Schema determined ID by the Shorthand Pointer. If a target cannot be identified based on XML Schema determined ID then Reference target MAY be identified based on other criteria allowed for Shorthand Pointers. 18:21:34 a suggestion and a question 18:21:46 suggestion: s/then Reference target/then the reference target/ 18:22:05 question: just say the target may be identified based on other criteria? 18:22:26 Kumar agrees to suggestion 18:22:40 or say "it is implementation-defined whehter a reference target is identified based on other criteria .../ 18:23:33 Kumar agrees to MSM's proposed rewording. 18:24:48 If the fragment component complies with the Shorthand Pointer syntax, then the reference target is the element identified based on XML Schema determined ID by the Shorthand Pointer. If a target cannot be identified based on XML Schema determined ID then it is implementation-defined whehter the reference target is identified based on other criteria allowed for Shorthand Pointers. 18:24:48 18:24:48 18:27:22 Sandy: This change makes clearer what our intention is, but it still suffers from the same problem of the is vs. may. 18:28:45 s/is vs. may/"is" vs. "may" 18:30:26 Sandy: Problematic case: schema-determined ID does not exist. 18:30:38 If the fragment component complies with the Shorthand Pointer syntax, then: 18:30:40 -- If a target can be identified based on XML Schema determined ID, the the target is the element identified based on XML Schema determined ID by the Shorthand Pointer. 18:30:42 -- If a target cannot be identified based on XML Schema determined ID then it is implementation-defined whether the reference target is identified based on other criteria allowed for Shorthand Pointers. 18:31:24 Sandy agrees with ginny wording. 18:31:54 s/ginny/ginny's 18:32:29 Kumar agrees 18:32:38 [MSM wonders whether "XML Schema determined ID" should be just "the schema-determined ID" (with same hyperlink) 18:33:46 Kumar: "schema-determined ID" previously caused confusion. 18:34:15 MSM: use "the" and hyphenate. 18:34:44 Pratul: Is there an objection to ginny's text in IRC. 18:35:07 ...There is no objection. Pratul will update the bug with these comments. 18:35:30 RESOLUTION: Resolve point #1 as per wording provided by Ginny. 18:37:36 Pratul: Reviewer is still recorded as "not satisfied". 18:38:54 TOPIC: Issue: 5797: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5797 18:39:03 -Sandy 18:39:25 +Sandy 18:40:06 Kumar: fix does not include comment #5. 18:42:08 ...Strict-wildcard is requirement on processor, those added in Conformance section, and does not pertain to the structure of the model. Therefore it doesn't belong in Validity #1. 18:43:13 MSM: This point leaves model validity underspecified. You have say: Validity as specified in point 8 of Conforming model. 18:44:12 Kumar: I am OK with the cross-reference. 18:45:22 MSM: Two possibilities. Leave item 8 and insure cross-references. Put the text in point #1 so we don't need cross-reference. 18:45:51 Ginny and Kirk agree with MSM; which is in agreement with Sandy Comment #5. 18:47:38 Kumar: Need to have requirement on conforming validity, a processor can claim to be conforming without doing strict-wildcard validation. But can live with comment #5. 18:48:14 MSM: What is in item 8 is lax-wildcard validation. 18:50:13 Sandy: Issue: Is comment #2 what we agreed to? And if we did, verify that text says that. 18:54:07 MSM: Really mean if whether element is in schema, & this has to do with SML validity, not schema validity. 18:55:12 MSM: If there is a schema, we want root element to be valid started in strict-wildcard mode. If there is no element in the schema, then it is not a valid SML model. 18:55:28 I think SG's text in comment 5 does the job pretty well (although it's kind of indirect) 18:57:54 Kumar: where do we say if there is no schema bound, then no schema validity is performed? 18:58:34 MSM: In this this case, no schema validity is to be performed in order to say that the model is SML valid. 18:59:02 Kumar: Requests Sandy to add another sentence. 18:59:46 rssagent, make log public 19:00:29 rrsagent, make log public 19:01:00 MSM: Acknowledges that there is a problem in the XML Schema spec. 19:01:55 "If no schema is bound to the instance document, then whether whether schema-validity is assessed for that instance doucment is implementation defined. The outcome, if any, does not affect SML model validity." 19:02:06 s/whether whether/whether 19:02:14 [Perhaps make the item begin "In each instance document in the model which is bound to a schema, ..." 19:03:17 and add a sentence in a separate paragraph saying "For instance documents not bound to any schema, the schema-validity of the instance document is not relevant to the validity of the model"] 19:03:57 s/doucment/document 19:04:32 Pratul: Why are we making this change now? 19:06:34 MSM: Comment #2 goes beyond a declarative statement and becomes an imperative statement. The declarative statement is the in this case it is irrelevant to SML validity. 19:06:50 1. In each instance document in the model which is bound to a schema, 19:06:50 the [validity] property of the root element MUST be "valid", and the 19:06:50 [validity] property of all the other elements and all the attributes 19:06:50 MUST NOT be "invalid", when schema validity is assessed with respect 19:06:50 to any schema that is bound to this instance document. The assessment 19:06:51 starts at the root element with no stipulated declaration or 19:06:53 definition. [XML Schema Structures]. 19:06:55 Note: The schema-validity of instance documents not bound to any 19:06:57 schema does not contribute to the validity or invalidity of the 19:06:59 model. 19:07:38 MSM: Sandy's version is OK. 19:09:11 Kumar: Prefers the condition to be normative. 19:09:23 Sandy: Prefers MSM's version. 19:09:54 Good job, editors and Sandy! 19:09:55 John: Proposal is to accept MSM's version, remove "Note:" so the statement is considered normative. 19:10:58 Pratul: We are in agreement. 19:11:42 RESOLUTION: Copy MSM's wording for validity item #1; delete current item #8 for Conforming Validitator. 19:12:20 ...mark as editorial. 19:13:06 TOPIC: Issue 5922: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5922 19:14:13 Pratul: Are there any objections to resolving this issue as in specs? 19:14:20 No Objections. 19:14:37 RESOLUTION: Issue 5922 is resolved as "Fixed". 19:15:22 5542 19:15:36 Topic: Issue 5542: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5542 19:16:07 Ginny: Reviews her changes to 4.3.1 bullet 2. 19:16:41 ...actually, changes are around 2a. No other changes beyond that. 19:18:39 Kumar: In 2aii, we need statement that behavior is implementation-defined. 19:19:13 John: We are forcing processor to document something that is none of our business. 19:20:35 Kumar: does not want to support xml:base. 19:21:31 Ginny: What is need: Computation of [base URI] is impl-def/dep 19:21:49 If the URI reference is a relative reference, then let U be the result of resolving the reference using the [base URI] property [XML Information Set] of the element as the base URI. Otherwise, U is the URI reference itself. The computation of the [base URI] property is implementation-defined. 19:24:15 Discussion lead by John regarding use of "defined" vs. "dependent". 19:24:48 my pref for dependent is mild at best 19:25:10 (and, as co-chair, irrelevant) 19:25:38 MSM: "sympathy" with John's preference for "dependent", but feels need to know may trump other concerns. 19:27:34 Sandy: Agrees "defined" is OK. 19:28:06 John: Are there objections to keeping it as proposed by Ginny. 19:28:11 ginny's text is the proposed replacement for SML 2.a.ii.A 19:28:12 No objections. 19:28:23 in section 4.3.1 SML URI Ref Scheme 19:28:58 RESOLUTION: Use text as proposed for by Ginny in 2aii in 4.3.1. 19:29:29 Ginny: Comment 12 contains the full text of the resolution. 19:33:10 Discussion between John and Ginny. 19:35:02 ...regarding the MUST embed condition 19:35:55 [sanity check: we are now discussing http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-sml/2008Aug/0026.html and its attachments, true? false?] 19:36:53 yes 19:37:34 John: suggests we take the vote contingent on resolution of this issue. 19:38:17 Pratul: My quesiton was whether we should continue discussion or carry on in email? 19:39:28 John reviews current open issues. 19:39:42 Pratul: we should do 5600. 19:43:01 ...Examples 19:43:26 John: We can take the vote by email 19:43:47 ...Kirk, Ginny, MSM confirm availability. 19:44:49 RESOLUTION: Members agree that because some members will be absent next week, we will take an email vote. 19:45:44 5561 xlink 19:46:04 any objections to marking 5561 target CR? 19:46:08 Do need to 5561 for LC (XLink)? No objections to marking a CR. 19:46:46 s/Do need/Do we need 19:47:02 any objections to marking 5680 target CR? 19:47:14 No objections. 19:50:34 Back to 5542 19:51:44 John: is OK with the "second red". 19:52:52 John: Question that Ginny: Is it allows for consumer to calculate [base URI] from xml:base in one document and smlif:baseURI in another kin the same SML-IF document? 19:53:19 s/kin/in 19:54:10 MSM: It was my understand that it would be possible to mix models in the same SMLIF document. 19:54:26 ...Agnostic on whether they ought to or not. 19:54:45 ...Ad hoc to forbid it. 19:55:22 Ginny: Foresees confusion and design difficulty. 19:55:48 John: I need to leave now. Pls take over. Thanks! 19:56:07 -pratul 19:56:28 John: Issue: mixing these in the same document and how this would work. See Ginny's example. 19:59:56 Ginny's concern if both mechanisms are used in the same document for different elements. 20:01:47 [time check] 20:02:39 John: Suggests that if xml:base is used anywhere in the document, then it must be used by everyone. 20:02:54 ...we need to make a clean document. 20:03:16 Ginny: we need to resolve issue on mixing the methods. 20:04:11 -Kumar 20:04:12 Meeting: adjourned by John at 4:03. 20:04:15 -MSM 20:04:18 -Sandy 20:04:20 -Ginny_Smith 20:04:22 -JArwe 20:04:29 rrsagent, generate minutes 20:04:29 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/08/21-sml-minutes.html Kirk 20:06:40 -Kirk 20:06:41 XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended 20:06:42 Attendees were +1.603.823.aaaa, Kirk, MSM, Sandy, +1.845.433.aabb, JArwe, pratul, +1.425.836.aacc, Kumar, Ginny_Smith 20:07:04 zakim, aabb is me 20:07:04 sorry, johnarwe_, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb' 20:07:13 johnarwe_ has left #sml 22:10:43 Zakim has left #sml