00:01:52 <MSM> XSLT test summary: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/xslt20-test/Documentation/reportSummary.html
00:02:20 <MSM> XSLT test cases detail: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/xslt20-test/Documentation/reportTestCases.html
00:02:59 <MSM> XQuery implementation report: http://www.w3.org/XML/Query/test-suite/XQTSReport.html
16:12:51 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sml
16:12:51 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/28-sml-irc
16:12:59 <Kirk> Let me know when the phone line is available.  Thanks.
16:13:09 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sml
16:13:23 <Kumar> zakim, this will be SML
16:13:23 <Zakim> ok, Kumar; I see XML_SMLWG()11:00AM scheduled to start 73 minutes ago
16:13:38 <Kumar> scribe: Kumar Pandit
16:13:45 <Kumar> scribenick: Kumar
16:14:06 <Kumar> meeting: SML WG f2f in Redmond
16:14:47 <Kumar> chair: John
16:15:14 <johnarwe_> we are having some "issues" w the phone.  it's some fancy thing no one can figure out how to work yet.  complete w/ "driver"s
16:15:58 <Kirk> Obviously, a Microsoft driver is needed!!
16:16:14 <ginny> ginny has joined #sml
16:18:46 <Liam> Liam has joined #sml
16:25:28 <Kirk> Have you figured out the phone yet??
16:26:23 <lencharest> lencharest has joined #sml
16:27:19 <johnarwe_> no
16:27:53 <johnarwe_> we're now talking about switching rooms, trying to find a POTS to plug in 
16:29:00 <Kirk> What happened to standard interfaces -- for telephones??
16:30:24 <MSM> MSM has joined #sml
16:39:11 <Kirk> Well, let me know if you can a phone line open.  I'll stay connected to IRC. 
16:40:37 <johnarwe_> we are moving to another room now
16:40:43 <Kirk> I have another call that I must attend at 4:30 ET.  So I'm good for the whole morning session.
16:49:36 <ginny> ginny has joined #sml
16:49:39 <lencharest> lencharest has joined #sml
16:50:04 <johnarwe_> johnarwe_ has joined #sml
16:50:42 <Zakim> XML_SMLWG()11:00AM has now started
16:50:47 <Kirk> With a comprehensible telephone, I presume.
16:50:49 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:51:09 <johnarwe_> we just called in
16:51:20 <Kirk> Ok, I'll call in.
16:51:50 <Zakim> +Kirk
16:52:22 <Kumar> Kumar has joined #sml
16:53:59 <MSM> MSM has joined #sml
16:54:29 <Kumar> rrsagent, make log public
16:56:05 <Kumar> topic: EPR note
16:56:26 <Kumar> kirk: I will walk you through the doc.
16:56:46 <johnarwe_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Oct/0016.html
16:59:34 <Kumar> kirk: ...explains the need to have epr based SML ref scheme.
17:04:56 <Kumar> kirk: section 2 defines a framework for defining EPR based SML ref schemes.
17:06:22 <pratul> pratul has joined #sml
17:09:49 <Kumar> kirk: ...discusses how section 2 provides a way to convert the non-normative note into a normative one if desired.
17:17:45 <Kumar> kirk: ... describes a sample EPR based scheme defined in section 3.1
17:30:24 <Kumar> kirk: ...describes how refs that use EPR based ref schemes can be used in SML-IF for interchange.
17:31:31 <pratul> pratul has joined #sml
17:45:13 <johnarwe_> after we finish with the EPR Note review, and pick up the transition request again, the drafts reflecting yesterday's wg mtg updates are at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Oct/0020.html
17:57:48 <pratul_> pratul_ has joined #sml
18:02:42 <Kumar> msm: publishing first public draft of a note is relatively easy. the general understanding is that the WG is done with the content of the note and is not expected to work on it more.
18:04:34 <Kumar> msm: publishing as a working draft ==> the WG will work on it further.
18:04:49 <Kumar> msm: publishing as a note ==> WG does not expect further work on it.
18:05:30 <Kumar> kirk: I propose that we publish the EPR note as a W3C note.
18:05:53 <Kumar> resolution: The WG agrees that the EPR note will be published as a note.
18:06:55 <Zakim> -Kirk
18:06:59 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
18:07:01 <Zakim> XML_SMLWG()11:00AM has ended
18:07:01 <Zakim> Attendees were [Microsoft], Kirk
18:08:46 <Kumar> rrsagent, who is here?
18:08:46 <RRSAgent> I'm logging.  Sorry, nothing found for 'who is here'
18:08:59 <ginny> rrsagent, list attendees
18:08:59 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'list attendees', ginny.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
18:18:44 <MSM> Kirk?
18:19:01 <Zakim> XML_SMLWG()11:00AM has now started
18:19:06 <MSM> [meeting starts up again]
18:19:08 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
18:20:12 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
18:20:13 <Zakim> XML_SMLWG()11:00AM has ended
18:20:13 <Zakim> Attendees were [Microsoft]
18:20:33 <johnarwe_> Kirk, we are moving back upstairs now so the vultures do not steal our midday sup once it arrives.
18:22:36 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sml
18:23:48 <Kirk> Let me know if I can call back in.  (You'll have to re-invite Zakim.)
18:25:04 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sml
18:25:12 <MSM> zakim, this is sml
18:25:12 <Zakim> ok, MSM; that matches XML_SMLWG()11:00AM
18:25:39 <johnarwe_> johnarwe_ has joined #sml
18:25:40 <MSM> zakim, who's here?
18:25:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Microsoft]
18:25:41 <Zakim> On IRC I see johnarwe_, Zakim, MSM, Liam, RRSAgent, Sandy, Kirk, trackbot
18:26:05 <MSM> zakim, [Microsoft] has johnarwe_, Kumark, Ginny, Sandy, Len, and MSM
18:26:05 <Zakim> +johnarwe_, Kumark, Ginny, Sandy, Len, MSM; got it
18:26:06 <johnarwe_> Kirk, we are dialed in again in the new room
18:27:19 <Kirk> Ok--will dial in.
18:28:01 <Zakim> +??P4
18:28:17 <Kirk> zakim, ??P4 is Kirk
18:28:17 <Zakim> +Kirk; got it
18:29:39 <lencharest> lencharest has joined #sml
18:32:43 <ginny> ginny has joined #sml
18:43:17 <Kirk_> Kirk_ has joined #sml
18:56:15 <pratul> pratul has joined #sml
18:56:40 <johnarwe_> A conforming [model processor] MUST process a conforming SML model using, in whole or part, semantics defined by this specification. It is OPTIONAL that a conforming model processor process all elements defined in this specification, but any element that is processed MUST be processed according to the requirements stated in the normative sections of this specification. In particular, if a conforming model processor performs model validation, then that proc
18:57:39 <johnarwe_>  In particular, if a conforming model processor performs model validation, then that process MUST be performed as described in this specification. 
18:58:31 <johnarwe_> further, ginny suggests omitting that last sentence
18:59:24 <johnarwe_> MSM: we have established that both specs have must/may/should statements which target model processors in general
18:59:43 <johnarwe_> (Kumar lost IRC connection so his typing was not showing up)
19:00:24 <MSM> A conforming SML [or: SML-IF] processor is one which satisfies all the
19:00:24 <MSM> constraints imposed on processors elsewhere in this specification.
19:00:24 <MSM> Optionally, add: All SML[-IF] validators are SML[-IF] processors, but
19:00:24 <MSM> not all processors are validators.
19:05:18 <Kumar> Kumar has joined #sml
19:05:42 <pratul> RESOLUTION: Add the first two lines proposed by MSM to the SML Conformance Section
19:06:02 <Kumar> topic: Continue work on CR Transition Request
19:06:16 <Kumar> ...discussion on how we treat model processors.
19:06:52 <Kumar> john: we define model processors in the spec and there are a few normative statements about model processors in the sml spec.
19:07:46 <Kumar> john: The definition of model processors is so broad that we cannot have any meaningful set of tests to test interoperability of model processors.
19:08:48 <Kumar> msm: we have some statements in SML spec that use MAY or MUST regarding model processors therefore we should add an entry in the "Conformance" section for model processors.
19:13:42 <Kumar> rrsagent, ?
19:13:42 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand '?', Kumar.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
19:13:56 <Kumar> rrsagent, where am i?
19:13:56 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/10/28-sml-irc#T19-13-56
19:21:17 <Kumar> rrsagent, generate minutes
19:21:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/28-sml-minutes.html Kumar
19:34:36 <Kirk_> I think I'm going to quit.  "Talk" tomorrow.  Again, thanks for the input on the EPR Note.
19:34:48 <Zakim> -Kirk
20:11:33 <ginny> scribe: Ginny
20:11:40 <ginny> scribenick: ginny
20:12:09 <ginny> rrsagent, generate minutes
20:12:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/28-sml-minutes.html ginny
20:13:32 <ginny> zakim, list attendees
20:13:32 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been johnarwe_, Kumark, Ginny, Sandy, Len, MSM, Kirk
20:13:33 <MSM> zakim, who's here?
20:13:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Microsoft]
20:13:35 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has johnarwe_, Kumark, Ginny, Sandy, Len, MSM
20:13:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see ginny, lencharest, johnarwe_, Zakim, MSM, Liam, RRSAgent, trackbot
20:14:08 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
20:14:09 <Zakim> XML_SMLWG()11:00AM has ended
20:14:10 <Zakim> Attendees were johnarwe_, Kumark, Ginny, Sandy, Len, MSM, Kirk
20:14:42 <pratul> pratul has joined #sml
20:15:10 <Liam> [xquery at lunch]
20:16:02 <Kumar> Kumar has joined #sml
20:16:47 <ginny> Topic: continue discussion of SML transition request document
20:21:19 <ginny> ginny: Isn't multiple schemes in an SML reference more of an extension point rather than optional feature?
20:27:53 <ginny> MSM: propose that we label this feature as EXT not SML
20:30:34 <ginny> Kumar: we should add additional info about our categories of optional features, e.g. testability of extension points.
20:35:15 <ginny> kumar: need test case for non-Schema determined IDs 
20:42:27 <ginny> Kumar: we can't test whether an implementation does consistency checking on multiple base uri methods
20:48:10 <ginny> MSM: if inconsistency is known, the model is invalid
20:48:16 <ginny> Is there a requirement to report this?
20:51:04 <ginny> MSM: 'xml:base wins' means we prescribe what interpretation is to be placed on the model
20:51:06 <ginny> MSM: you recover from this error (inconsistency) this is how you recover.
20:53:15 <Sandy> Sandy has joined #sml
20:55:22 <Liam> MSM, there is still a lunch here for you
20:56:42 <ginny> Need a test case for consistency checking assuming that we have an implementation that does consistency checking.
20:57:39 <ginny> s/Need/[test case]/
20:58:27 <ginny> s/Kumar: need test case/[test case] Kumar: need test case/
21:26:33 <ginny> No candidates for "at risk" identified in SML
21:27:21 <Liam> Liam has joined #sml
21:30:35 <ginny> No candidates for "at risk" identified in SML-IF
21:31:41 <ginny> the working group will define a list of features and verify implementation of these features in the 2 implementations we have
21:34:18 <ginny> rrsagent, generate minutes
21:34:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/28-sml-minutes.html ginny
21:42:29 <ginny> Topic: Creating list of features
22:22:46 <ginny> Discussion of granularity of features
22:29:38 <ginny> spec table of contents is the starting point
22:30:10 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sml
22:31:05 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sml
22:53:10 <ginny> List is being captured in the SML transition request doc.
22:56:14 <ginny> rrsagent, generate minutes
22:56:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/28-sml-minutes.html ginny
23:32:15 <ginny> Initial feature list identified; now working on matching Cosmos tests with features.
23:59:45 <ginny> rrsagent, generate minutes
23:59:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/28-sml-minutes.html ginny