IRC log of sml on 2008-12-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:03:15 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sml
19:03:15 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:03:49 [ginny]
ginny has joined #sml
19:04:03 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sml
19:05:31 [Kirk]
Meeting: SML WG Teleconference Dec 11, 2008
19:05:42 [johnarwe_]
zakim, who's here?
19:05:42 [Zakim]
sorry, johnarwe_, I don't know what conference this is
19:05:44 [Zakim]
On IRC I see ginny, RRSAgent, Kirk, johnarwe_, lencharest, trackbot
19:05:47 [johnarwe_]
zakim, this is sml
19:05:47 [Zakim]
ok, johnarwe_; that matches XML_SMLWG()2:00PM
19:05:56 [johnarwe_]
19:06:07 [Kirk]
chair: John Arwe
19:06:31 [Kirk]
scribe: Kirk Wilson
19:06:44 [Kirk]
scribeNick: Kirk
19:07:08 [Kirk]
rrsagent, make log public
19:08:37 [Kirk]
zakim, who's on the phone?
19:08:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +1.845.433.aaaa, [Microsoft], +1.603.823.aabb, MSM, Ginny_Smith
19:08:49 [johnarwe_]
zakim, aaaa is me
19:08:49 [Zakim]
+johnarwe_; got it
19:08:51 [Kirk]
regrest: Kumar, Sandy
19:09:00 [johnarwe_]
zakim, aabb is Kirk
19:09:00 [Zakim]
+Kirk; got it
19:09:17 [lencharest]
zakim, [Microsoft] is me
19:09:17 [Zakim]
+lencharest; got it
19:09:28 [johnarwe_]
minutes of 12/4
19:09:37 [Kirk]
Topic: Approval of Minutes
19:10:08 [Kirk]
Minutes approved by unanimous consent.
19:10:37 [Kirk]
Topic: Communication from CG
19:10:44 [Kirk]
Nothing new.
19:10:53 [Kirk]
Topic: Action Items
19:11:09 [lencharest]
See public/2007/xml/sml/tests
19:12:19 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
19:12:38 [Kirk]
Action 208: Create directories in CVS
19:12:38 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - 208
19:13:00 [Kirk]
208: Create directories in CVS
19:14:35 [Kirk]
Provided more information to Len on this action.
19:15:57 [Kirk]
190: Draft test case for lax fallback
19:16:04 [Kirk]
MSM: No progress
19:17:56 [Kirk]
Topic: Next steps on Documents
19:18:52 [Kirk]
Ginny: Reports that she cannot move tests from Interoperability to Extensibility
19:19:24 [Kirk]
John: Ginny can locate extensibility document from the minutes of F2F.
19:20:41 [Kirk]
John: Issue for WG--should we remove three features currently in Interoperability that are not Interop features and keep them?
19:22:19 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
19:22:24 [ginny_]
From 11/20 minutes:
19:22:26 [ginny_]
1- RESOLUTION: move "noSchemaNV" from "interop" list to "extensibility" list.
19:22:28 [ginny_]
2 - RESOLUTION: move "baseUriCheck" from "interop" list to "extensibility" list.1-
19:22:29 [ginny_]
3 - RESOLUTION: remove "baseUriReq" from the feature list.
19:22:31 [ginny_]
I propose to simply remove these 3 items from the test spreadsheet since this spreadsheet contains only tests for interop features.
19:22:56 [johnarwe_]
s/and keep/or keep/
19:23:30 [Kirk]
RESOLUTION: Proposals passes without objection.
19:23:39 [Kirk]
19:24:46 [Kirk]
TOPIC: Working Group Document
19:25:29 [Kirk]
Len: Reports on progress regarding loading EPR Ref Scheme and XLink Ref Scheme.
19:26:08 [Kirk]
Len: HMTL did not eliminate Word edit changes.
19:26:43 [Kirk]
Kirk: Will work on EPR Ref Scheme references over XMas holidays.
19:28:39 [Kirk]
MSM: W3C standard is to publish documents in HTML. How WGs develop such documents is up to the WG.
19:30:24 [Kirk]
Len: Will prepare XLink Ref Scheme for publication.
19:32:19 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
19:35:08 [Kirk]
Len: Will delete HTML documents from CVS and we will continue to work on the Word documents.
19:36:28 [ginny]
19:36:53 [ginny]
This is the web interface to CVS
19:37:13 [johnarwe_]
19:37:42 [johnarwe_]
(previous url can be found at at the top, under "related")
19:39:33 [johnarwe_] ..
19:40:26 [johnarwe_]
previous is the url of a schema file someone found via a google search - have been unable to find out via webreq where it came from, lifecycle, etc
19:41:26 [Kirk]
ACTION: Michael to investigate source of the url pointing to sml-schema.xsd
19:41:26 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-209 - Investigate source of the url pointing to sml-schema.xsd [on Michael Sperberg-McQueen - due 2008-12-18].
19:41:45 [Kirk]
Topic: New Work:
19:42:19 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
19:42:22 [Kirk]
John: No new work.
19:42:39 [Kirk]
Topic: Existing Work
19:42:53 [Kirk]
John: Nothing productive we can do with existing work.
19:43:04 [Kirk]
Topic: Test Case Discussion
19:44:02 [Kirk]
John: Advises the WG to let the WG know if you are going to work on a particular test case.
19:44:55 [Kirk]
Concrete responses from COSMOS to our comments.
19:44:56 [johnarwe_]
19:48:35 [Kirk]
items 16 & 17
19:50:26 [johnarwe_]
16 - base64dtdentity.xml (decoded) contains
19:50:27 [johnarwe_]
<?xml version="1.0"?>
19:50:27 [johnarwe_]
19:50:27 [johnarwe_]
19:50:27 [johnarwe_]
19:50:27 [johnarwe_]
<!ENTITY author "HL">
19:50:29 [johnarwe_]
<!ENTITY copyright "IBM">
19:50:32 [johnarwe_]
19:50:34 [johnarwe_]
19:50:35 [johnarwe_]
19:50:37 [johnarwe_]
<P>chapter 1 - Intro</P>
19:50:39 [johnarwe_]
<P>chapter 2 - Conclusion</P>
19:50:42 [johnarwe_]
19:50:43 [johnarwe_]
19:50:46 [johnarwe_]
19:52:11 [Kirk]
John: Sandy's response
19:52:15 [johnarwe_]
smlif says: "...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."
19:53:19 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
19:54:08 [johnarwe_]
thus Sandy said that a schema could be constructed, and in this case it would contain only the built-in schema components. a consequence, our comments are correct.
19:55:54 [Kirk]
MSM: What was the group thinking it was doing here?
19:56:47 [johnarwe_]
smlif: ... 5.4.3 is read.
19:59:23 [Kirk]
MSM: Agrees with Sandy interpretation of 5.4.3; therefore MSM agrees with our comments.
19:59:39 [Kirk]
No objections to this interpretation.
20:00:03 [Kirk]
17: Base64DTDInvalidXML
20:00:12 [johnarwe_]
decoded content: <?xml version="1.0"?>
20:00:13 [johnarwe_]
20:00:13 [johnarwe_]
20:00:13 [johnarwe_]
20:00:13 [johnarwe_]
<!ENTITY author "HL">
20:00:14 [johnarwe_]
<!ENTITY copyright "IBM">
20:00:17 [johnarwe_]
20:00:18 [johnarwe_]
20:00:21 [johnarwe_]
20:00:22 [johnarwe_]
<P>chapter 1 - Intro</P>
20:00:24 [johnarwe_]
<P>chapter 2 - Conclusion</P>
20:00:27 [johnarwe_]
20:00:28 [johnarwe_]
20:00:31 [johnarwe_]
20:02:19 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
20:02:35 [Kirk]
John: Doc invalid because Element is Book1, instance is <Book>.
20:04:16 [Kirk]
MSM: Can't be schema valid, unless there is a schema. There needs to be schema.
20:04:55 [Kirk]
19-23 Group: Base64EncodedDoc
20:06:57 [Kirk]
John: COSMOS has updated test cases.
20:07:50 [Kirk]
John: WG should review these test cases for next week to determine if they are now valid.
20:08:55 [Kirk]
John: Will attempt to get Sandy to review these.
20:12:20 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
20:12:21 [Kirk]
item 31 uses multiple reference scheme: thus, this is not an area where we can test interop.
20:13:13 [Kirk]
MSM: Implementations should tolerate another scheme even if they don't use it.
20:17:38 [Kirk]
...Agrees with John that we can't get to this kind of test.
20:18:21 [Kirk]
John: Uses two sml reference schemes but must reparse the document with their own sml ref scheme definition that allows 2 instances for consistency checking.
20:18:51 [Kirk]
John: We should drop this text case as not testable under interoperability
20:19:00 [Kirk]
No objection to this approach.
20:19:18 [Kirk]
item 32: InvalidConstraintsSubstitution
20:20:24 [Kirk]
John: Sandy is reviewing. 32 is correct; 44 still needs to work.
20:21:17 [Kirk]
item 49: InValidInCompleteModel.
20:22:05 [Kirk]
John: this has been fixed in the spec; test case implemented in COSMOS. WG should review.
20:22:19 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
20:22:33 [Kirk]
item 54:TestDocumentLocator
20:23:36 [Kirk]
John: Our comment, regarding sml:refType, is not applicable. Nothing else appears to be wrong. We need to withdraw the comment.
20:25:17 [Kirk]
items 55 - 56 TestRulesWithMultiple/UnderOnePattern
20:26:57 [Kirk]
John: Fixed and integrated by COSMOS
20:29:32 [Kirk]
item 61: InvalidBareNameUnresolved
20:30:16 [Kirk]
John: Definition of "valid"--according to our definition of valid, this is "Valid".
20:31:00 [Kirk]
...ffrom SML-perspective: this is valid
20:31:07 [Kirk]
20:31:53 [Kirk]
items 62, 66, 67, 83, 90: Same issue as item 31.
20:32:11 [Kirk]
John: Multiple schemes, we don't have interop for that.
20:32:19 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
20:32:34 [Kirk]
item 71: SingleRef
20:34:04 [Kirk]
John: Another case of definition difference, see item 61. This is not a problem in the test case.
20:34:23 [Kirk]
items 83 - 90: Multiple schemes issue
20:34:51 [Kirk]
item 92: ValidNilRefDefintion
20:35:36 [Kirk]
John: Fixed by bug fix.
20:35:56 [Kirk]
20:37:44 [Kirk]
item: 114 ValidSchematronRule
20:38:38 [Kirk]
John: COSMOS not sure what the problem is. COSMOS believes this is a valid test case. We need to provide explanation if we disagree.
20:40:34 [Kirk]
John: Do we want to take the approach that we will assume their fixes did indeed fix the problem until someone says otherwise, or should we have someone review the modified test cases?
20:41:24 [Kirk]
Ginny: Let Microsoft run the test cases and MS should inform us if something is wrong.
20:42:13 [Kirk]
RESOLUTION: No objections to accepting COSMOS fixes until something is discovered to be incorrect
20:42:19 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
20:42:28 [Kirk]
Topic: Success Criteria.
20:43:07 [Kirk]
John: Are we in sufficient position to discuss this topic?
20:44:54 [Kirk]
Ginny and Len: We want want to Kumar comes back to discuss specific criteria.
20:46:02 [Kirk]
John: In the meantime, he will review completeness of test cases and to code the test cases. Others should do this as well.
20:46:24 [Kirk]
No other business.
20:46:36 [Zakim]
20:46:38 [Zakim]
20:46:40 [Kirk]
Adjourn: 3:46 ET
20:46:43 [Zakim]
20:47:17 [Kirk]
rssagent, generate minutes
20:48:45 [Kirk]
rrsagent, generate minutes
20:48:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Kirk
20:49:01 [Zakim]
20:49:21 [Zakim]
20:49:23 [Zakim]
XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended
20:49:25 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.845.433.aaaa, +1.603.823.aabb, MSM, Ginny_Smith, johnarwe_, Kirk, lencharest
21:12:13 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sml
21:12:36 [johnarwe_]
johnarwe_ has left #sml