IRC log of sml on 2008-09-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:01:58 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sml
18:01:58 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/25-sml-irc
18:02:11 [Zakim]
XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has now started
18:02:18 [Zakim]
+Kumar
18:02:40 [Zakim]
+johnarwe_
18:03:05 [Zakim]
+Kirk
18:03:10 [Kumar]
zakim, this will be SML
18:03:10 [Zakim]
ok, Kumar, I see XML_SMLWG()2:00PM already started
18:03:47 [Kumar]
scribe: Kumar Pandit
18:03:52 [johnarwe_]
johnarwe_ has joined #sml
18:03:53 [Kumar]
scribenick: kumar
18:04:02 [Kumar]
meeting: SML WG Conf Call
18:04:05 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
18:04:31 [pratul]
Zakim, Microsoft is me
18:04:31 [Zakim]
+pratul; got it
18:04:33 [johnarwe_]
MSM is in Prague, and sent regrets... right, He Who Is Not Here But Is On IRC ?
18:04:42 [Kumar]
chair: John
18:05:29 [johnarwe_]
zakim, who's on the phone?
18:05:29 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Kumar, johnarwe_, Kirk, pratul
18:05:33 [Kumar]
topic: Approval of minutes from previous meeting(s)
18:05:41 [johnarwe_]
zakim, this is sml
18:05:41 [Zakim]
johnarwe_, this was already XML_SMLWG()2:00PM
18:05:42 [Zakim]
ok, johnarwe_; that matches XML_SMLWG()2:00PM
18:07:48 [ginny]
ginny has joined #sml
18:07:54 [Zakim]
+Sandy
18:08:25 [johnarwe_]
ginny, you are planning to call in?
18:08:26 [Zakim]
+Ginny_Smith
18:09:39 [Kumar]
resolution: minutes of 9/18 are approved.
18:13:00 [Kumar]
topic: October meeting
18:13:24 [Kumar]
john: Please register for the meeting if you are planning to attend.
18:13:43 [Kumar]
topic: Action Item
18:13:53 [Kumar]
s/Item/Items
18:15:05 [Kumar]
pratul: I will update my AI eta.
18:15:31 [Kumar]
kumar: I sent updated test plan last night. I will close the AI.
18:18:02 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
18:18:11 [johnarwe_]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Sep/0022.html
18:18:15 [Kumar]
john: msm opened bug for xml id constraint alignment with SML. He also sent email about interoperability. I will close the 2 corresponding action items.
18:18:28 [Kumar]
topic: Test case discussion
18:23:12 [johnarwe_]
wrt Ginny's first stmt, I see no evidence in 9/18 minutes that we decided to use a single smlif instance document for all test cases. In fact, each time this question came up IIRC people including MSM objected, since doing so prevents us from having tests for <locator>
18:27:01 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
18:28:55 [Kumar]
ginny: I have some suggestions about text in section# 2. 1.a can also be an advantage.
18:28:55 [johnarwe_]
scribe, if you are typing it is not coming across in irc
18:28:59 [Kumar]
kumar: I agree.
18:29:01 [johnarwe_]
ah, never mind
18:29:24 [Kumar]
ginny: 2.b does not seem right because we are using sml-if.
18:30:18 [Kumar]
kumar: I had meant #1 to be 'no sml-if used as container' case.
18:30:30 [Kumar]
ginny: I will work with Kumar offline to revise the text.
18:33:18 [johnarwe_]
the sense I had last week was general agreement that manual comparison of error messages was not useful for interop testing, but might be useful for finding bugs in one's impl.
18:37:01 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
18:37:10 [Kumar]
ginny: If we know that a model has only 1 error and if 2 implementations produce different error results on validation then one of the implementation has a bug. in that case that implementation should fail the test even if it produces 'invalid' as the overall result.
18:40:06 [Kumar]
pratul: we decided last time that manual comparison results will not invalidate test.
18:41:18 [Kumar]
ginny: I am ok either way. That is, whether manual comparison results should invalidate the test or not. However, I would like the spec to clarify that point.
18:41:57 [Kumar]
kumar: I will clarify in the spec that manual comaprison results will not invalidate test. It will be used as diagnostic aid in finding bugs in implementations.
18:45:01 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
18:45:29 [Kumar]
john: let us discuss open issues
18:46:58 [Kumar]
#1 We need to specify behavior when an optional feature is not supported.
18:48:46 [Kumar]
pratul: If we try to define behavior when an optional feature is not implemented, that may involve changing the spec substantively. We have recently issued 2nd last call and we should avoid going towards 3rd last call.
18:51:48 [MSM]
MSM has joined #sml
18:53:39 [Kumar]
ginny: I am not sure whether we should require a consumer to do something when it encounters an instance of an optional feature it does not support. should we require it to fail? should we requrie it to ignore silently?
18:55:01 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
18:56:54 [Kumar]
ginny: I am probably ok with the spec the way it is.
18:58:03 [Kumar]
kumar: we can probably look at each optional feature case and see what the spec says.
18:58:39 [Kumar]
ginny: locator: spec already says that the validator that does not support locators must treat the doc as not present.
18:59:57 [Kumar]
sandy: schemabinding: We define that an implementation that does not support schemabinding must use all schema documents to construct a schema.
19:00:31 [johnarwe_]
Otherwise, if an SML-IF consumer chooses not to process the schemaBindings element, then the SML-IF consumer MUST compose a schema using all schema documents included in the SML-IF document and MUST use this schema to validate all instance documents in the interchange model.
19:00:44 [johnarwe_]
excerpt above is from LC 2 SML section 5, last parag
19:00:51 [Kumar]
ginny: locid: The spec does not say what a consumer should do when it does not support it.
19:02:01 [Kumar]
john: baseURI: The spec already covers all relevant cases. both smlif:baseURI and xml:base present. when none is present etc.
19:03:21 [pratul]
I need to go now - bye!
19:03:32 [Zakim]
-pratul
19:05:01 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
19:09:32 [Kumar]
kumar: I will remove last line of item 2 on page4. I will add that test results for optional features will not be used for comparison with other implemenations. It will be used for making sure that an implementation that supports it has correct implementation.
19:12:27 [Kumar]
resolution: group agrees with Kumar's previous statement .
19:15:01 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
19:16:10 [Kumar]
#2 Define directory structure to hold files related to interop testing.
19:18:57 [Kumar]
kumar: If we are planning to use COSMOS tests, we can simply say that we will use the same dir structure as COSMOS.
19:19:06 [Kumar]
john: I am ok with it.
19:23:38 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
19:28:46 [Kumar]
resolution: dir structure in section 3 is approved. Under each test directory (eg, testsForOptionalFeatures) we will use some way to group tests by the feature they test.
19:29:09 [Kumar]
#3 Need to decide test result format
19:35:01 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
19:37:47 [Kumar]
john: did we miss the test-metatdata related open issue?
19:39:50 [Kumar]
kumar: I used 'test result format' to mean the test-metatdata issue.
19:41:12 [Kumar]
john: msm wanted to consider combinations of conforming/non-conforming and valid/invalid.
19:45:01 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
19:46:05 [Kumar]
kumar: a valid model is always conforming. a non-conforming model is not valid. therefore, the cases of interest are conforming+valid/invalid and non-conforming.
19:47:07 [Kumar]
kumar: when a model is non-conforming (eg, non-welformed xml) implementations can produce widely varying outputs therefore it will be very hard to compare results of non-conformance tests in an automated way.
19:55:01 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
19:55:15 [Kumar]
ginny: I would like to defer the decision on the test-metadata till I better understand how the testing process will be structured end-to-end.
19:55:46 [Zakim]
-Ginny_Smith
19:56:00 [Kumar]
kumar: we are not freezing the decision here. we will mention what we think should happen. we can revisit it if the group sees the need later on.
20:00:08 [johnarwe_]
issue 4 in the draft is ill-formed: it should be looked at as follows.
20:00:41 [johnarwe_]
Each implementation's behavior, for any feature, whether supported by the implementation or not, is prescribed by the spec.
20:02:19 [johnarwe_]
As a consequence of this, if the spec prescribes or allows different behavior when a feature is supported vs not supported, two implementations, one of which supports the feature and the other of which does not support the feature, may exhibit different behaviors.
20:02:32 [johnarwe_]
...and Kirk can fix the awkward "of which"s in there\
20:03:29 [Kumar]
resolution: the group agrees with the previous statement by john.
20:04:14 [Zakim]
-Kumar
20:04:18 [Kumar]
rrsagent, generate minutes
20:04:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/25-sml-minutes.html Kumar
20:04:19 [Zakim]
-Kirk
20:04:19 [johnarwe_]
rrsagent, make log public
20:04:20 [Zakim]
-Sandy
20:04:34 [Zakim]
-johnarwe_
20:04:35 [Zakim]
XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended
20:04:36 [Zakim]
Attendees were Kumar, johnarwe_, Kirk, pratul, Sandy, Ginny_Smith
20:12:42 [johnarwe_]
johnarwe_ has left #sml
20:17:07 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sml