IRC log of sml on 2008-10-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:02:19 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #sml

18:02:19 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/16-sml-irc

18:02:23 [johnarwe_]

johnarwe_ has joined #sml

18:02:24 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #sml

18:03:00 [johnarwe_]

zakim, this is sml

18:03:00 [Zakim]

ok, johnarwe_; that matches XML_SMLWG()2:00PM

18:03:06 [pratul]

Agenda is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Oct/0008.html

18:03:28 [Kumar]

Kumar has joined #sml

18:04:17 [Zakim]

+[Microsoft]

18:04:26 [pratul]

Zakim, Microsoft is me

18:04:26 [Zakim]

+pratul; got it

18:06:47 [johnarwe_]

regrets: Sandy, MSM, Ginny

18:07:46 [kirkw]

kirkw has joined #sml

18:08:15 [kirkw]

chair: Pratul Dublish

18:08:26 [kirkw]

scribenick: kirkw

18:08:33 [kirkw]

schribe: Kirk Wilson

18:08:37 [johnarwe_]

zakim, who's here?

18:08:37 [Zakim]

On the phone I see +1.425.836.aaaa, johnarwe_, ??P15, pratul

18:08:38 [Zakim]

On IRC I see kirkw, Kumar, Zakim, johnarwe_, RRSAgent, pratul, Kirk, trackbot

18:09:12 [johnarwe_]

zakim, aaaa is kumar

18:09:12 [Zakim]

+kumar; got it

18:09:21 [johnarwe_]

zakim, ??P15 is Kirk

18:09:21 [Zakim]

+Kirk; got it

18:09:22 [kirkw]

scribe: Kirk Wilson

18:09:36 [johnarwe_]

zakim, who's here?

18:09:36 [Zakim]

On the phone I see kumar, johnarwe_, Kirk, pratul

18:09:37 [Zakim]

On IRC I see kirkw, Kumar, Zakim, johnarwe_, RRSAgent, pratul, Kirk, trackbot

18:10:00 [johnarwe_]

minutes at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Oct/att-0006/20081002-sml-minutes.html

18:10:19 [kirkw]

Topic: Approval of minutes from 10/2

18:10:37 [kirkw]

RESOLUTION: Minutes approved without objection.

18:10:59 [kirkw]

TOPIC: Issues opened by John

18:11:28 [kirkw]

Issue 5053: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5153

18:11:51 [kirkw]

rrsagent, make log public

18:12:18 [kirkw]

John: Issue has to do with word order and clarification.

18:12:43 [kirkw]

Pratul: Issue is, Shall we endorse the resolution?

18:14:04 [kirkw]

RESOLUTION: We endorse the resolution.

18:14:27 [kirkw]

Issue 5155: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5155

18:16:08 [kirkw]

RESOLUTION: We endorse the resolution.

18:16:34 [kirkw]

TOPIC: Action Items

18:17:01 [kirkw]

John: Only two open, from MSM and Pratul for draft of XLink note.

18:17:23 [kirkw]

Pratul: Will have XLink note for F2F.

18:17:55 [kirkw]

TOPIC: Latest draft of Test Case Document

18:18:04 [Zakim]

-Kirk

18:18:40 [kirkw]

My phone connect just dead on me. Let me get back on.

18:19:11 [Zakim]

+??P4

18:19:32 [kirkw]

zakim, ??P4 is kirkw

18:19:32 [Zakim]

+kirkw; got it

18:19:34 [johnarwe_]

zakim, ??P4 is Kirk

18:19:34 [Zakim]

I already had ??P4 as kirkw, johnarwe_

18:20:41 [kirkw]

Discussion of section 2

18:23:01 [kirkw]

Correction to p. 1 line 25:

18:23:11 [johnarwe_]

inconsistency betw 1.25 and 3.21-22 to be corrected

18:23:41 [johnarwe_]

btw, for the IRC record, for today I am repping IBM since Sandy is not able to attend

18:24:23 [Kumar]

from : Therefore, each test will be represented by an SML-IF document.

18:24:23 [Kumar]

to : Therefore, all tests, except the tests thatt test the locator element, will be represented by an SML-IF document.

18:24:41 [johnarwe_]

2.16 documentS

18:24:54 [kirkw]

s/thatt/that

18:27:52 [kirkw]

RESOLUTION: Text as pasted in IRC is approved.

18:28:00 [johnarwe_]

4. 16 resultS

18:28:15 [johnarwe_]

4.16 and -> or

18:28:23 [johnarwe_]

4.17 resultS

18:29:35 [johnarwe_]

4.23 This -> Comparing test results (so it refers back to 1st sentence, not 2nd, which seems like the original intent)

18:34:23 [kirkw]

John: bottom of p. 4.37: We have additional question if SML-IF document is valid, whether the model is SML valid. This leads to the possibility of a tertiary value of the results. Results, therefore, are not simply a boolean value.

18:35:34 [kirkw]

...There are states: SML-IF invalid vs. SML-IF valid (which can be SML valid or invalid)

18:36:18 [kirkw]

Kumar: Addressed by lines 1 - 8 on p. 5.

18:36:35 [kirkw]

s/are states/are three states

18:42:00 [kirkw]

Kumar: This is not a problem for the two implementations that we know. It will be clear from the test time what the source of the error is.

18:42:38 [kirkw]

John: Boolean is correct: Issue is what can be guaranteed from the spec and what you can know as a human. The two are not the same.

18:45:56 [kirkw]

RESOLUTION: No objections from current attendees to approving the text-plan doc with the specific change on p. 1.

18:46:12 [johnarwe_]

s/text/test/

18:46:14 [kirkw]

s/text-/test-

18:46:36 [kirkw]

TOPIC: Review of COSMOS Test Plan.

18:46:46 [kirkw]

See Ginny's email.

18:47:21 [pratul]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-sml/2008Oct/0010.html

18:51:45 [pratul]

an SML reference (sml:ref = true) using only unrecognized schemes. (#1 above)

18:52:20 [kirkw]

Discussion: SML references using unrecognized schemes.

18:52:32 [kirkw]

...What is the expected result of the test?

18:52:58 [kirkw]

John: If targetRequired, then SML reference is invalid.

18:54:12 [kirkw]

Kumar: Doesn't see much value in writing such a test case. If both implementations doesn't understand the reference schemes, there is no issue of interoperability.

18:55:38 [kirkw]

John: We need to answer the question of whether we are starting with COSMOS and then just discuss additional test cases?

18:56:15 [kirkw]

...Pratul agrees we should start with this question.

18:57:20 [kirkw]

RESOLUTION: Agreed without objection to start with accepting the COSMOS set suite.

18:57:37 [kirkw]

s/set/test

18:58:22 [kirkw]

Returning to considering Ginny's list:

18:59:48 [pratul]

- an SML reference (sml:ref = true) using only unrecognized schemes. (#1 above)

19:00:27 [kirkw]

Kumar: Proposal is NOT to add it.

19:00:50 [kirkw]

John: If Ginny was to write such a case, we would not reject it.

19:01:09 [johnarwe_]

s/we/I/

19:01:48 [kirkw]

RESOLUTION: The group will not write such a case, but if Ginny were to write a case, we would accept it.

19:02:48 [kirkw]

Second Test Case: does not look like there are tests that test the necessary processing to identify identical targets (section 4.2.3) E.g., bullet #2 is not tested.

19:05:42 [kirkw]

Kumar: MS implementation could not test such a condition, since it supports only the SML URI reference scheme.

19:06:50 [kirkw]

Pratul: We have different aliases pointing to the same element.

19:07:01 [johnarwe_]

sml 4.2.3 #2 starts Otherwise, a model validator MUST consider both targets to be different when

19:10:27 [kirkw]

Pratul: Proposal is to add this test case.

19:10:58 [kirkw]

RESOLUTION: We should add a test case to cover this scenario.

19:11:28 [kirkw]

...Pratul: have one or more test cases.

19:11:40 [pratul]

I don't see deref() tests for each bullet in section 4.2.7, 1.b.

19:11:53 [kirkw]

Third Test Case: no test for section 4.3.1, bullet 1 (wrong namespace for 'uri') and bullet 1.a.

19:11:54 [pratul]

Ginny: I don't see deref() tests for each bullet in section 4.2.7, 1.b.

19:13:20 [kirkw]

NOTE: to myself--correct this copy error during editing.

19:13:53 [kirkw]

Pratul: Proposal is to add test case to cover this scenario: 1.b test case.

19:14:04 [pratul]

Proposal: Add test case(s) to cover 4.2.7, 1(b)

19:14:30 [kirkw]

Kumar: Since MS supports only one scheme, MS could not test it.

19:15:18 [kirkw]

RESOLUTION: If anybody can write the test case, we will accept it.

19:15:35 [kirkw]

...Attendees are "neutral" to this test case.

19:15:49 [kirkw]

s/can/is willing to

19:16:02 [kirkw]

Fourth issue: no test for section 4.3.1, bullet 1 (wrong namespace for 'uri') and bullet 1.a.

19:16:05 [pratul]

Ginny: no test for section 4.3.1, bullet 1 (wrong namespace for 'uri') and bullet 1.a.

19:16:06 [Kumar]

This test case will fall into the optional features test bucket.

19:17:10 [kirkw]

s/This test/Third bullet

19:17:55 [kirkw]

Pratul: Proposal is to add test cases for this scenario.

19:20:00 [kirkw]

RESOLUTION: We should add a test case to cover this scenario.

19:20:15 [kirkw]

...Kumar: there may be a test case for this.

19:20:39 [kirkw]

Fifth bullet: no targetRequired tests for derivation by restriction or substitution groups (there are tests for these in targetElement and targetType) - section 5.1.2.1, bullet 1.b and section 5.1.2.2 (for targetRequired).

19:21:06 [kirkw]

Pratul: Proposal is to add these test cases.

19:21:13 [kirkw]

Kumar: Agreed.

19:22:02 [kirkw]

RESULTION: We should add test cases to cover this scenario.

19:22:35 [kirkw]

Sixth bullet: no deref() test for sml:selector or sml:field, sections 5.2.1.2 - bullets 1 and 2.

19:23:21 [kirkw]

Kumar: We have test cases for this; also COSMOS.

19:24:06 [Kumar]

id-constraint-KeyDuplicate-invalid.xml

19:26:58 [kirkw]

Kumar: Ginny may mean what happens if there are invalid XPath.

19:28:23 [kirkw]

Pratul: We need more information from Ginny regarding what she means and go on from there.

19:29:29 [kirkw]

...Pratul will write Ginny an email after the call.

19:29:53 [kirkw]

Seventh bullet: no test for section 5.2.1.2, bullet 4.

19:31:33 [kirkw]

Pratul: Proposal is to add test cases for this, if COSMOS has no test cases for this scenario.

19:32:28 [kirkw]

RESOLUTION: Agreed, no objections.

19:32:54 [kirkw]

Eigth bullet: acyclic tests do not mention "intra-document references" so I assume there may not be a test for this. The tests only mention "inter-document references".

19:34:35 [kirkw]

Pratul: Proposal is to add test cases to cover intra-document acyclic constraint for intra-document references.

19:35:02 [kirkw]

RESOLUTION: We agree with no objections.

19:35:52 [Kumar]

s/id-constraint-KeyDuplicate-invalid.xml/InValidKeyDuplicate.xml/

19:35:53 [kirkw]

Pratul: Should we have a meeting next week?

19:37:26 [kirkw]

Pratul: We will meet next wekk.

19:37:26 [Zakim]

-pratul

19:37:28 [Zakim]

-kumar

19:37:32 [Zakim]

-kirkw

19:37:40 [kirkw]

s/wekk/week

19:37:45 [johnarwe_]

rrsagent, generate minutes

19:37:45 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/16-sml-minutes.html johnarwe_

19:37:52 [johnarwe_]

rrsagent, make log public

19:38:07 [kirkw]

Thank you.

19:38:27 [johnarwe_]

looks like it worked too

19:38:35 [Zakim]

-johnarwe_

19:38:36 [Zakim]

XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended

19:38:38 [Zakim]

Attendees were +1.425.836.aaaa, johnarwe_, pratul, kumar, Kirk, kirkw

19:38:51 [johnarwe_]

I've gotten so paranoid I don't hang up until the log is public

19:40:19 [kirkw]

Actually, I did that at some point during the start of session. Have it on my check off list.

20:48:39 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #sml

23:54:28 [MSM]

MSM has joined #sml