18:00:53 RRSAgent has joined #sml 18:00:53 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-sml-irc 18:01:16 Kumar has joined #sml 18:01:42 meeting: W3C SML Teleconference 18:01:55 zakim, this is sml 18:01:55 ok, johnarwe_; that matches XML_SMLWG()2:00PM 18:03:06 + +1.603.823.aacc 18:03:23 zakim, who is here 18:03:23 Kumar, you need to end that query with '?' 18:03:27 zakim, aacc is me 18:03:27 +Kirk; got it 18:03:27 zakim, who is here? 18:03:28 On the phone I see +1.425.836.aaaa, +1.845.433.aabb, Kirk 18:03:30 On IRC I see Kumar, RRSAgent, Zakim, johnarwe_, Kirk, trackbot, MSM 18:03:38 Sandy has joined #sml 18:03:41 zakim, aaaa is me 18:03:41 +Kumar; got it 18:03:56 chair: John Arwe 18:04:01 zakim,aabb is me 18:04:01 +johnarwe_; got it 18:04:06 +Sandy 18:04:09 Regrets: Julia, Pratul 18:04:41 scribe: Kirk Wilson 18:04:49 scribenick: Kirk 18:05:28 Regrets+: Ginny 18:05:57 zakim, who's here? 18:05:57 On the phone I see Kumar, johnarwe_, Kirk, Sandy 18:05:58 On IRC I see Sandy, Kumar, RRSAgent, Zakim, johnarwe_, Kirk, trackbot, MSM 18:06:00 zakim, please call MSM-617 18:06:00 ok, MSM; the call is being made 18:06:02 +MSM 18:06:12 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Sep/0008.html 18:06:50 rrsagent, make log public 18:07:27 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Sep/att-0007/20080904-sml-minutes.html 18:07:32 TOPIC: Approval of minutes of 9/4 18:08:06 No objections to approving minutes as true record of meeting of 9/4 18:08:26 TOPIC: From CG 18:08:42 John: People should register for Oct meeting. 18:09:10 ... Also vote concerning February meeting. 18:09:22 TOPIC: Action Items 18:09:33 Kumar to talk to Patul 18:09:54 s/Patul/Pratul 18:11:07 Kumar: Agreed with Pratul do not strong feelings about making the request to the schema group regarding inheritance of identity constraints. But no objection to it. 18:11:43 ...Microsoft does not want to reconsider the original decision to write a proposal to the Schema group. 18:12:12 John: Action was to write a proposal. It does not appear that this action was executed. 18:12:44 John: Working group must reassign action or reconsider its decision. 18:13:36 Sandy has joined #sml 18:15:33 John: Is there anyone else who would like to write the proposal? (Do we impede Schema 1.1 by submitting past deadline of LC comments?) 18:16:53 MSM: Important to get on Schema's agenda. Would like someone from group write it. But MSM is willing to write it so that it doesn't fall off the agenda. 18:18:18 John: Would full endorsement by the WG help to alleviate concern? 18:19:26 MSM: Yes, with indication that the SML WG will or will not endorse it in order to get it on the agenda. 18:19:54 Sandy has joined #sml 18:20:30 John thanks MSM for filling in on this task. 18:22:05 John is reassign action 137 to MSM to open bugzilla issue. 18:23:13 MSM: Will complete action 190 this afternoon. Develop sample for schema validity assessment. 18:24:00 TOPIC: Endorsement of Schema buts openned by John 18:24:10 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6009 through http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6015 18:24:54 Unclear Passages: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6009 18:26:15 MSM: Proposes that we endorse 6009 as coming from the entire SML WG 18:26:32 RESOLUTION: The WG endorses 6009. 18:26:49 Priority Feedback response: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6010 18:28:17 John: This responds to specific to requests for feedback. 18:29:16 MSM: Endorse 3.3.4.6 and the last one on redefine. 18:30:17 MSM: Comfortable with endorsing all five, but middle 3 do not deal with SML issues. 18:30:41 Issue 1. 3.3.4.6 Fall back to Lax 18:30:55 RESOLUTION: No objections to endorsement. 18:31:20 Issue 2: 3.3.4.5 (not part of SML). 18:31:52 RESOLUTION: No objections to endorsement 18:32:37 Base URI comments: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6011 18:33:11 s/6011/6010/ 18:33:21 s/Base URI comments: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6011 / 18:34:21 Issue 3: 3.10.1 ##Define keyword 18:34:59 Kumar: regarding Issue 1, What does "fallback" mean? 18:36:50 MSM: For wildcard for which you have no declaration, should validator say, "I won't validiate" or "I validate subtree as far as possible". We prefer to fallback to lax, i.e., validate subtree. 18:37:37 RESOLUTION: WG endorses comment. 18:37:54 Issue 4: 3.10.1 ##Sibling keyword. 18:38:16 RESOLUTION: WG endorses comment without objection. 18:39:03 Issue 5: 4.2.3 Redefine 18:40:45 RESOLUTION: WG endorses comment without objection. 18:41:59 John: Adds note to issue that SML no longer mentions "redefine" but member submission exclueded it. 18:42:05 Base URI comments: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6011 18:43:25 Kirk: Propose that we endorse 6011 18:43:42 RESOLUTION: WG endorses 6011 without objection. 18:43:54 Inconsistencies in text: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6012 18:44:50 Kirk: Propose that we endorse 6012 18:44:55 RESOLUTION: W 18:45:13 s/RESOLUTION: W 18:45:29 RESOLUTION: WG endorses 6012 without objection. 18:45:41 New examples needed: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6013 18:46:12 No proposal. WG did not endorse this issue. 18:46:26 Normative text problems: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6014 18:47:43 MSM: Marked as editorial = passages will be recast to normative or rewrite without normative implications. 18:49:45 MSM: These will be acted upon on matter what the SML WG does. 18:50:29 RESOLUTION: No objections to "punting" on 6014 = not choosing to endorse it. 18:50:44 Valid vs. assessement: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6015 18:51:08 s/assessement/assessment 18:52:01 John: There is ample opportunity to confuse readers, also possible contradictions. 18:52:19 Kirk: Proposes endorsement of 6015 18:52:37 RESOLUTION: WG endorses 6015 without objection. 18:53:00 TOPIC: Test Case Discussion. 18:53:30 Emails on interop test plan, in date order 18:53:30 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Apr/0062.html Kumar 1st draft 18:53:30 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Apr/0067.html Ginny comments 18:53:30 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Apr/0069.html Kumar response + 2nd draft (1st+line #s) 18:53:30 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Apr/0073.html Ginny (brief) comments 18:53:31 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Apr/0087.html Kirk "what is interop[able]?" 18:53:33 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008May/0017.html John comments on 2nd draft attached 18:53:35 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008May/0023.html John "need to know features" 18:56:44 Kumar: We should discuss whether we agree with the text plan. 18:57:02 s/text/test/ 19:01:34 MSM: Comment on p.1 lines 6-8 Overview: The criteria are minimal criteria, they are not exit criteria until chair and Direction occurs to these. Groups have criteria higher than these. 19:02:08 ...If we walk in with one implementation of each Required feature, there will not be a successful Director's call. 19:02:23 s/Direction/Director/ 19:02:41 ...Concrete revision to this sentence. (MSM will draft the revision.) 19:03:04 zakim, whose making noise? 19:03:04 I don't understand your question, Kirk. 19:03:21 zakim, who is making noise? 19:03:26 zakim, who's making noise? 19:03:32 johnarwe_, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: johnarwe_ (5%) 19:03:43 Kirk, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: johnarwe_ (9%), Kirk (14%), MSM (85%) 19:05:02 s/occurs/agrees 19:07:56 In order to progress from Candidate Recommendation status to Proposed 19:07:56 Recommendation, any W3C specification must satisfy the exit criteria 19:07:56 for Candidate Recommendation agreed upon by the Director and the 19:07:57 chairs of the responsible Working Group. At a minimum, the W3C 19:07:57 process document requires that the specification have at least one 19:07:57 implementation of each feature, and preferably two inter-operable 19:07:59 implementations; additional exit criteria may be (and often are) 19:08:02 agreed by the Director and chairs. 19:08:33 last line: agreed to by ? 19:11:12 Kumar: This should say what we intended to do. 19:12:51 MSM: Exit criteria are agreed upon by Directory and chairs. We have to be in position to provide the appropriate information. 19:13:10 s/tory/tor/ 19:15:54 In order to progress from Candidate Recommendation status to Proposed 19:15:55 Recommendation, SML and SML-IF must satisfy the exit criteria for 19:15:55 Candidate Recommendation agreed upon by the Director and the chairs of 19:15:55 the SML Working Group. At a minimum, the W3C process document 19:15:55 requires that each specification have at least one implementation of 19:15:55 each feature, and preferably two inter-operable implementations; 19:15:57 additional exit criteria may be (and often are) agreed by the Director 19:15:59 and chairs. This document defines the approach adopted by the SML 19:16:01 working group to meet that goal. 19:18:42 MSM: We cannot say what is likely to be the exit criteria. We will need to discuss what criteria the chair will take to the Director. Test Plan must be able to provide the information regarding what features have been tested. 19:23:16 ...It is premature to talk about exit criteria in this document. We need to have a test plan to identify what features are tested, not the number of implementations. 19:24:53 +[Microsoft] 19:26:12 As a consequence, the basic requirement for our test plan is that the 19:26:13 SML WG must construct a test suite suitable for documenting (a) which 19:26:13 features of the spec have been implemented and (b) for each feature 19:26:13 implemented more than once, whether the implementations are consistent 19:26:13 and interoperable. This document defines the approach adopted by the 19:26:14 SML working group to meet that goal. 19:26:25 pratul has joined #sml 19:27:28 Kumar: Agrees that this "makes sense". 19:28:11 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Apr/att-0069/sml-interop-test-plan.pdf 19:28:21 No objections to revisions to section 1 as proposed by MSM. 19:28:39 Section 2: Test packaging. 19:30:47 zakim, who is making noise? 19:30:58 johnarwe_, listening for 11 seconds I could not identify any sounds 19:32:00 zakim, who is making noise? 19:32:12 johnarwe_, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Microsoft] (20%) 19:33:34 MSM: We have to be able to test two SML-IF documents with documents in-line or not. We may find it more convenient to have a catalog of tests. A third possibility: test description in a catalog where each test is test described with metadata. 19:33:36 -Kumar 19:35:16 ...We cannot use either method is isolation because we have to test in-line and not in-line document. 19:36:31 ...This approach contradicts p. 2 lines 17-18. 19:37:02 ...We need to have tests for the locator element. 19:38:41 MSM: We need to specify behavior when an optional feature is not supported. 19:39:52 Section 3: Test Storage and Organization 19:41:08 MSM: If we plan to have a test catalog, we need to say in the diretory structure where catalogs will go. Also, where test result files will be placed. 19:41:41 John: Are progress reports typically stored in CVS? 19:41:59 MSM: Typically, Yes. 19:44:44 ...Most groups make provision for anonymous submission of test results. 19:44:57 s/Most/Some 19:46:21 John: Does group realize we may have pointers to other test plans, e.g., COSMOS? 19:46:45 I was concerned with ptrs to test cases, not plans. 19:47:12 Pratul raises issue of persistence of these cases/durability of these references. 19:48:50 MSM: Nothing requires that all test suites must reside on W3C servers. But we should have catalogs in one place. 19:49:11 Section 4: Test Execution 19:50:33 MSM: If we decided to have a test result format, should this go into this section? 19:51:56 Section 5: Analyzing Test Results 19:52:43 Pratul: First line: WG is not required to have anything. 19:53:57 MSM: "As mentioned earlier, the test suite will have at least tone est for every feature." 19:54:25 s/tone est/one test/ 19:55:17 MSM: Revision to second paragraph, lines 9 -12. 19:59:40 ...Second question: If we processors implement an optional feature different, then question is why. There are two results: (1) don't implement the optional feature, (2) 2 processors should implement the optional feature in the same way. We should expect them to implement the optional feature to the same. 20:01:31 ...Say the same about two implementations that DON'T the features. If you don't support feature X, and you get X. Two impls should support the same behavior. 20:01:43 -Sandy 20:02:31 -johnarwe_ 20:02:55 -MSM 20:03:00 Pratul: We should not spend a great of time perfecting this document because we expect only two implementations. 20:03:07 -Kirk 20:03:30 Meeting adjourned: 4:02 ET. 20:03:44 rrsagent, generate minutes 20:03:44 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-sml-minutes.html Kirk 20:04:51 rrsagent, make log public 20:04:56 johnarwe_ has left #sml 20:08:08 disconnecting the lone participant, [Microsoft], in XML_SMLWG()2:00PM 20:08:10 XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended 20:08:11 Attendees were +1.425.836.aaaa, +1.845.433.aabb, +1.603.823.aacc, Kirk, Kumar, johnarwe_, Sandy, MSM, [Microsoft] 21:50:58 Zakim has left #sml