See also: IRC log
Topic is SML WG Teleconference
Agenda at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Aug/0066.html
<scribe> scribenick: Kirk
<scribe> Scribe: Kirk Wilson
<scribe> Chair: Pratul Dublish
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Aug/att-0054/20080814-sml-minutes.html
Meetings of 8-14 call is approved without objection.
Kumar has created a diff and Sandy had comments.
Pratul: Are these changes substantial or can be consider them editorial and move on?
MSM: We need to deal with Sandy's point #1 regarding an apparent contradiction.
Kumar: I agree with point #1.
Sandy: Point #2 doesn't have to fixed before LC.
<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.
<MSM> a suggestion and a question
<MSM> suggestion: s/then Reference target/then the reference target/
<MSM> question: just say the target may be identified based on other criteria?
Kumar agrees to suggestion
<MSM> or say "it is implementation-defined whehter a reference target is identified based on other criteria .../
Kumar agrees to MSM's proposed rewording.
<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.
Sandy: This change makes clearer
what our intention is, but it still suffers from the same
problem of the "is" vs. "may".
... Problematic case: schema-determined ID does not exist.
<ginny> If the fragment component complies with the Shorthand Pointer syntax, then:
<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.
<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.
Sandy agrees with ginny's wording.
Kumar agrees
<MSM> [MSM wonders whether "XML Schema determined ID" should be just "the schema-determined ID" (with same hyperlink)
Kumar: "schema-determined ID" previously caused confusion.
MSM: use "the" and hyphenate.
Pratul: Is there an objection to
ginny's text in IRC.
... There is no objection. Pratul will update the bug with
these comments.
RESOLUTION: Resolve point #1 as per wording provided by Ginny.
Pratul: Reviewer is still recorded as "not satisfied".
Kumar: fix does not include
comment #5.
... 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.
MSM: This point leaves model validity underspecified. You have say: Validity as specified in point 8 of Conforming model.
Kumar: I am OK with the cross-reference.
MSM: Two possibilities. Leave item 8 and insure cross-references. Put the text in point #1 so we don't need cross-reference.
Ginny and Kirk agree with MSM; which is in agreement with Sandy Comment #5.
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.
MSM: What is in item 8 is lax-wildcard validation.
Sandy: Issue: Is comment #2 what we agreed to? And if we did, verify that text says that.
MSM: Really mean if whether
element is in schema, & this has to do with SML validity,
not schema validity.
... 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.
<MSM> I think SG's text in comment 5 does the job pretty well (although it's kind of indirect)
Kumar: where do we say if there is no schema bound, then no schema validity is performed?
MSM: In this this case, no schema validity is to be performed in order to say that the model is SML valid.
Kumar: Requests Sandy to add another sentence.
rssagent, make log public
MSM: Acknowledges that there is a problem in the XML Schema spec.
<Sandy> "If no schema is bound to the instance document, then whether schema-validity is assessed for that instance document is implementation defined. The outcome, if any, does not affect SML model validity."
<MSM> [Perhaps make the item begin "In each instance document in the model which is bound to a schema, ..."
<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"]
Pratul: Why are we making this change now?
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.
<MSM> 1. In each instance document in the model which is bound to a schema,
<MSM> the [validity] property of the root element MUST be "valid", and the
<MSM> [validity] property of all the other elements and all the attributes
<MSM> MUST NOT be "invalid", when schema validity is assessed with respect
<MSM> to any schema that is bound to this instance document. The assessment
<MSM> starts at the root element with no stipulated declaration or
<MSM> definition. [XML Schema Structures].
<MSM> Note: The schema-validity of instance documents not bound to any
<MSM> schema does not contribute to the validity or invalidity of the
<MSM> model.
MSM: Sandy's version is OK.
Kumar: Prefers the condition to be normative.
Sandy: Prefers MSM's version.
<MSM> Good job, editors and Sandy!
John: Proposal is to accept MSM's version, remove "Note:" so the statement is considered normative.
Pratul: We are in agreement.
RESOLUTION: Copy
MSM's wording for validity item #1; delete current item #8 for
Conforming Validitator.
... mark as editorial.
Pratul: Are there any objections to resolving this issue as in specs?
No Objections.
RESOLUTION: Issue 5922 is resolved as "Fixed".
<pratul> 5542
Ginny: Reviews her changes to
4.3.1 bullet 2.
... actually, changes are around 2a. No other changes beyond
that.
Kumar: In 2aii, we need statement that behavior is implementation-defined.
John: We are forcing processor to document something that is none of our business.
Kumar: does not want to support xml:base.
Ginny: What is need: Computation of [base URI] is impl-def/dep
<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.
Discussion lead by John regarding use of "defined" vs. "dependent".
<johnarwe_> my pref for dependent is mild at best
<johnarwe_> (and, as co-chair, irrelevant)
MSM: "sympathy" with John's preference for "dependent", but feels need to know may trump other concerns.
Sandy: Agrees "defined" is OK.
John: Are there objections to keeping it as proposed by Ginny.
<johnarwe_> ginny's text is the proposed replacement for SML 2.a.ii.A
No objections.
<johnarwe_> in section 4.3.1 SML URI Ref Scheme
RESOLUTION: Use text as proposed for by Ginny in 2aii in 4.3.1.
Ginny: Comment 12 contains the full text of the resolution.
Discussion between John and Ginny.
scribe: regarding the MUST embed condition
<MSM> [sanity check: we are now discussing http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-sml/2008Aug/0026.html and its attachments, true? false?]
<ginny> yes
John: suggests we take the vote contingent on resolution of this issue.
Pratul: My quesiton was whether we should continue discussion or carry on in email?
John reviews current open issues.
Pratul: we should do 5600.
... Examples
John: We can take the vote by
email
... Kirk, Ginny, MSM confirm availability.
RESOLUTION: Members agree that because some members will be absent next week, we will take an email vote.
<johnarwe_> 5561 xlink
<johnarwe_> any objections to marking 5561 target CR?
Do we need to 5561 for LC (XLink)? No objections to marking a CR.
<johnarwe_> any objections to marking 5680 target CR?
No objections.
Back to 5542
John: is OK with the "second
red".
... Question that Ginny: Is it allows for consumer to calculate
[base URI] from xml:base in one document and smlif:baseURI in
another in the same SML-IF document?
MSM: It was my understand that it
would be possible to mix models in the same SMLIF
document.
... Agnostic on whether they ought to or not.
... Ad hoc to forbid it.
Ginny: Foresees confusion and design difficulty.
<pratul> John: I need to leave now. Pls take over. Thanks!
John: Issue: mixing these in the same document and how this would work. See Ginny's example.
Ginny's concern if both mechanisms are used in the same document for different elements.
<MSM> [time check]
John: Suggests that if xml:base
is used anywhere in the document, then it must be used by
everyone.
... we need to make a clean document.
Ginny: we need to resolve issue on mixing the methods.
<scribe> Meeting: adjourned by John at 4:03.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/is vs. may/"is" vs. "may"/ Succeeded: s/ginny/ginny's/ Succeeded: s/whether whether/whether/ Succeeded: s/doucment/document/ Succeeded: s/Do need/Do we need/ Succeeded: s/kin/in/ Found ScribeNick: Kirk Found Scribe: Kirk Wilson WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Ginny_Smith JArwe John Kirk Kumar MSM Microsoft Note Pratul Sandy aabb aacc ginny johnarwe_ scribenick suggestion trackbot You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Regrets: Julia Got date from IRC log name: 21 Aug 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/08/21-sml-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]