IRC log of sml on 2008-09-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

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