IRC log of sml on 2008-08-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

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