17:58:16 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sml
17:58:16 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-sml-irc
17:58:21 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sml
17:59:14 <ginny> meeting: W3C SML Teleconference of 2008-xx-xx
17:59:16 <ginny> scribe: Virginia Smith
17:59:18 <ginny> scribenick: ginny
17:59:20 <ginny> chair: Pratul
17:59:21 <ginny> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Sep/0014.html
17:59:52 <ginny> meeting: W3C SML Teleconference of 2008-09-18
18:00:26 <MSM> zakim, please call MSM-617
18:00:27 <Zakim> sorry, MSM, I don't know what conference this is
18:00:33 <MSM> zakim, this is SML
18:00:33 <Zakim> ok, MSM; that matches XML_SMLWG()2:00PM
18:00:35 <Kirk> Kirk has joined #sml
18:00:36 <MSM> zakim, please call MSM-617
18:00:36 <Zakim> ok, MSM; the call is being made
18:00:37 <Zakim> +MSM
18:00:59 <MSM> zakim, who's here?
18:00:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Microsoft], MSM
18:01:00 <Zakim> On IRC I see Kirk, Zakim, RRSAgent, ginny, pratul, MSM, trackbot
18:01:09 <pratul> Zakim, Microsoft is me
18:01:09 <Zakim> +pratul; got it
18:01:18 <ginny> regrets: Jim, Julia, Kumar
18:01:21 <Zakim> + +1.845.433.aaaa
18:01:29 <Zakim> + +1.603.823.aabb
18:01:41 <Kirk> zakim, aabb is Kirk
18:01:41 <Zakim> +Kirk; got it
18:01:52 <johnarwe_> johnarwe_ has joined #sml
18:02:10 <ginny> rrsagent, make log public
18:02:37 <MSM> zakim, who's here?
18:02:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see pratul, MSM, +1.845.433.aaaa, Kirk
18:02:38 <Zakim> On IRC I see johnarwe_, Kirk, Zakim, RRSAgent, ginny, pratul, MSM, trackbot
18:02:42 <Kumar> Kumar has joined #sml
18:03:11 <Zakim> +Sandy
18:03:13 <johnarwe_> zakim, aaaa is me
18:03:13 <Zakim> +johnarwe_; got it
18:03:13 <Sandy> Sandy has joined #sml
18:03:49 <MSM> is anyone speaking?
18:03:55 <Zakim> -MSM
18:04:03 <Zakim> +Ginny_Smith
18:04:05 <MSM> zakim, please call MSM-617
18:04:05 <Zakim> ok, MSM; the call is being made
18:04:06 <Zakim> +MSM
18:04:19 <Zakim> + +1.425.836.aacc
18:04:30 <johnarwe_> zakim, aacc is Kumar
18:04:30 <Zakim> +Kumar; got it
18:04:48 <Zakim> -MSM
18:04:49 <ginny> regrets: Jim, Julia
18:05:10 <MSM> zakim, please call MSM-617
18:05:10 <Zakim> ok, MSM; the call is being made
18:05:12 <Zakim> +MSM
18:05:24 <ginny> rrsagent, generate minutes
18:05:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-sml-minutes.html ginny
18:06:21 <ginny> Topic: Approval of minutes from Sep 11
18:06:22 <ginny> RESOLUTION: minutes approved
18:07:53 <ginny_> ginny_ has joined #sml
18:08:05 <MSM> scribe: ginny_
18:08:12 <MSM> scribenick: ginny_
18:10:12 <MSM> scribenick: ginny
18:10:49 <johnarwe_> Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6056
18:12:17 <ginny> RESOLUTION: The working group agrees to endorse this bug.
18:12:45 <johnarwe_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Apr/att-0069/sml-interop-test-plan.pdf
18:12:46 <ginny> Topic: Continue with test case discussion
18:17:15 <ginny_> ginny_ has joined #sml
18:17:45 <ginny_> scribe: ginny_
18:17:47 <ginny_> scribenick: ginny_
18:18:41 <ginny> current location: page 3 section 5
18:19:12 <ginny> MSM: does not believe that test results should be only boolean valid/invalid
18:19:43 <ginny> ... e.g. should include errors/messages
18:20:31 <ginny> Ginny: you're talking about manual comparison in this case
18:22:06 <ginny> Pratul: in previous interop workshop, the implementations provided diagnostics and were manually compared
18:23:22 <ginny> Ginny: agree that this information would be useful even if not automate-able
18:25:54 <ginny> Sandy: 2 kinds of validity results - model and SML-IF document
18:26:23 <ginny> Kumar: where does SML-IF validation come in?
18:27:15 <ginny_> ginny_ has joined #sml
18:27:22 <ginny_> scribe: ginny_
18:27:27 <ginny_> scribenick: ginny_
18:27:45 <ginny_> Kumar: 2 kinds of test cases - sml and sml-if
18:28:51 <ginny_> MSM: suggest discussing this in the future: what the testable assertions are in sml and sml-if
18:30:17 <johnarwe_> we revised 3-4 last week with much discussion
18:32:18 <johnarwe_> MSM text pasted from process doc
18:32:23 <MSM> Entrance criteria: The Director calls for review when satisfied that the Working Group has:
18:32:23 <MSM> Fulfilled the general requirements for advancement;
18:32:23 <MSM> Shown that each feature of the technical report has been implemented. Preferably, the Working Group should be able to demonstrate two interoperable implementations of each feature. If the Director believes that immediate Advisory Committee review is critical to the success of a technical report, the Director may accept to Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation even without adequate implementation experience;
18:32:23 <MSM> Satisfied any other announced entrance criteria (e.g., any included in the request to advance to Candidate Recommendation, or announced at Last Call if the Working Group does not intend to issue a Call for Implementations).
18:35:27 <ginny> discussion of # of implementations for optional features
18:35:29 <ginny> moving to section 6
18:36:48 <johnarwe_> perhaps add "...in order to be a complete impl"?
18:38:16 <ginny_> ginny_ has joined #sml
18:38:31 <ginny_> scribe: ginny_
18:38:32 <ginny_> 	scribenick: ginny_
18:38:43 <ginny_> rrsagent, generate minutes
18:38:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-sml-minutes.html ginny_
18:40:14 <ginny> MSM: can have a partial implementation that implements a feature as contributing toward the "2 implentations" test.
18:40:35 <ginny> s/implentations/implementations/
18:43:30 <ginny> The sentence under discussion is "Each participating implementation must pass all tests in this section."
18:45:37 <MSM> Possible new wording:  
18:45:38 <MSM> 1. Tests for required features: 
18:45:38 <MSM> These features are "required" in the sense that conforming processors
18:45:38 <MSM> must support them.  If any partial implementations participate in the
18:45:39 <MSM> testing effort, those partial implementations may not pass all of
18:45:39 <MSM> these tests.
18:47:15 <ginny_> ginny_ has joined #sml
18:47:43 <ginny_> scribe: ginny_
18:47:45 <ginny_> scribenick: ginny_
18:48:21 <ginny> MSM changes above are accepted by the group
18:49:57 <ginny> discussing section 6, line 14
18:52:06 <ginny> MSM: should think about requiring specific behavior when an implementation does not support an optional feature. ignore? error?
18:52:40 <ginny> ... this is probably a spec change.
18:54:44 <johnarwe_> "spec" change is just words... the interesting question is, would such changes be -substantive-
18:57:16 <ginny_> ginny_ has joined #sml
18:57:47 <ginny_> scribe: ginny_
18:57:49 <ginny_> 	scribenick: ginny_
19:00:20 <ginny> Ginny: preference is to use IF format for tests
19:01:46 <ginny> MSM: also consider embedding metadata if desired
19:02:43 <ginny> Pratul: anyone disagree with using IF format?
19:02:45 <ginny> RESOLUTION: agree to use IF format for test cases rather than defining another test case format
19:03:53 <ginny> discussion of Kirk's comments around interoperability - interoperabilty of models or implementations
19:05:09 <ginny> MSM: suggests defiing a notion of interoperability as a triple of model, producer, and consumer
19:05:51 <ginny> s/defiing/defining/
19:07:16 <ginny_> ginny_ has joined #sml
19:07:23 <ginny_> scribe: ginny_
19:07:24 <ginny_> scribenick: ginny_
19:08:18 <ginny_> Pratul: in previous interop, did round-trip testing between 2 implementations
19:09:24 <ginny> John: need to define equivalency of the models
19:09:51 <ginny> scribe: ginny
19:09:53 <ginny> scribenick: ginny
19:09:56 <johnarwe_> s/cy/ce/
19:12:02 <ginny> MSM: just a heads up that W3C is looking at definition of interoperability but we should proceed to define this for our purposes
19:13:48 <johnarwe_> just for context in minutes: this discussion is based on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Apr/0087.html
19:13:48 <ginny> Action: MSM to define "interoperability" for SML and SML-IF testing purposes
19:13:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-201 - Define \"interoperability\" for SML and SML-IF testing purposes [on Michael Sperberg-McQueen - due 2008-09-25].
19:15:26 <ginny> moving to John's comments in second draft http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008May/att-0017/sml-interop-test-plan20080504.doc
19:17:16 <ginny_> ginny_ has joined #sml
19:17:39 <ginny_> scribe: ginny_
19:17:41 <ginny_> scribenick: ginny_
19:18:57 <johnarwe_> ok pdf is in the pipe
19:19:14 <johnarwe_> to public-sml and direct cc to msm
19:19:41 <ginny> scribe: ginny
19:19:43 <ginny> scribenick: ginny
19:21:57 <ginny> Discussion of John's comments in the document
19:22:06 <ginny> Section 1
19:22:12 <ginny> Ginny and MSM agree with comments
19:26:33 <ginny> Section 2
19:26:35 <ginny> Kumar has some reservations on option 3 (and also option 1 but we've agreed not to use option 1)
19:27:16 <ginny_> ginny_ has joined #sml
19:27:38 <ginny_> scribe: ginny_
19:27:40 <ginny_> scribenick: ginny_
19:29:51 <ginny> scribe: ginny
19:29:53 <ginny> scribenick: ginny
19:31:20 <ginny> Kumar: option 3 requires more work when most test cases are embedded files anyway
19:32:15 <ginny> John: option 3 does not require that we use locator but gives the option to do the work required if needed
19:32:45 <Zakim> -Kumar
19:32:54 <ginny> MSM: will need both embedded and locator in the case where we test the locator element
19:34:33 <pratul> I will be representing Microsoft for the rest of the call since Kumar has left the call
19:34:40 <ginny> Section 3
19:34:42 <ginny> John: implementation characteristics would be, e.g., features implemented
19:35:45 <ginny> MSM: xquery does this by saying one possible values of test result is "does not apply" 
19:36:51 <ginny> Ginny: need to consider effort versus value derived
19:38:14 <ginny_> ginny_ has joined #sml
19:38:21 <ginny_> scribe: ginny_
19:38:23 <ginny_> scribenick: ginny_
19:44:38 <ginny> John: not discussing final output format at this time
19:45:39 <ginny> Section 6
19:47:08 <ginny> John: in previous interop workshop, they manually reviewed the error output and decided if it was the 'same' or not
19:48:16 <ginny_> ginny_ has joined #sml
19:48:25 <ginny_> scribe: ginny_
19:48:27 <ginny_> scribenick: ginny_
19:49:02 <ginny_> Ginny: is comparison of errors in scope for this testing?
19:50:08 <pratul> Manual/human comparison is OK
19:52:14 <ginny> Ginny: Is manual checking part of 'passing the test'?
19:52:36 <ginny> Pratul: this is not a compliance test suite.
19:56:22 <Zakim> -MSM
19:57:16 <ginny_> ginny_ has joined #sml
19:57:17 <johnarwe_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008May/att-0017/sml-interop-test-plan20080504.doc
19:57:22 <johnarwe_> hang on
19:57:30 <johnarwe_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008May/0023.html
19:57:36 <johnarwe_> last email in the list :-)
19:57:42 <ginny_> scribe: ginny_
19:57:43 <ginny_> scribenick: ginny_
19:59:54 <ginny> Action: Kumar to update test case document to incorporate any specific decitions made over the past 2 weeks and to add a list a list of decisions still to be made by the working group
19:59:54 <trackbot> Created ACTION-202 - Update test case document to incorporate any specific decitions made over the past 2 weeks and to add a list a list of decisions still to be made by the working group [on Kumar Pandit - due 2008-09-25].
20:00:14 <Zakim> -Kirk
20:00:15 <Zakim> -Ginny_Smith
20:00:16 <Zakim> -pratul
20:00:18 <Zakim> -johnarwe_
20:00:19 <Zakim> -Sandy
20:00:21 <ginny> zakim, list attendees
20:00:21 <Zakim> XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended
20:00:22 <Zakim> Attendees were MSM, pratul, +1.845.433.aaaa, +1.603.823.aabb, Kirk, Sandy, johnarwe_, Ginny_Smith, +1.425.836.aacc, Kumar
20:00:22 <ginny> rrsagent, generate minutes
20:00:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-sml-minutes.html ginny
20:00:24 <Zakim> sorry, ginny, I don't know what conference this is
20:00:34 <johnarwe_> zakim, this was sml
20:00:34 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this was sml', johnarwe_
20:00:39 <johnarwe_> zakim, this is sml
20:00:39 <Zakim> johnarwe_, I see XML_SMLWG(Editors)4:00PM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be sml".
20:00:41 <ginny> zakim, this is SML
20:00:41 <Zakim> ginny, I see XML_SMLWG(Editors)4:00PM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be SML".
20:02:33 <johnarwe_> I think it's just the title
20:02:58 <ginny> ok
20:45:08 <johnarwe_> johnarwe_ has left #sml
22:06:08 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sml