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
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
18:03:28 [Kumar]
Kumar has joined #sml
18:04:17 [Zakim]
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
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:
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:
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]
18:18:40 [kirkw]
My phone connect just dead on me. Let me get back on.
18:19:11 [Zakim]
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]
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_]
18:46:14 [kirkw]
18:46:36 [kirkw]
TOPIC: Review of COSMOS Test Plan.
18:46:46 [kirkw]
See Ginny's email.
18:47:21 [pratul]
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]
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_]
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, bullet 1.b and section (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 - bullets 1 and 2.
19:23:21 [kirkw]
Kumar: We have test cases for this; also COSMOS.
19:24:06 [Kumar]
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, 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]
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]
19:37:28 [Zakim]
19:37:32 [Zakim]
19:37:40 [kirkw]
19:37:45 [johnarwe_]
rrsagent, generate minutes
19:37:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate 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]
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