IRC log of sml on 2009-01-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:56:42 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sml
18:56:42 [RRSAgent]
logging to
18:56:51 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sml
18:57:06 [lencharest]
zakim, this will be XML_SMLWG
18:57:06 [Zakim]
ok, lencharest; I see XML_SMLWG()2:00PM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
19:00:01 [Zakim]
XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has now started
19:00:11 [Zakim]
19:00:24 [lencharest]
zakim, [Microsoft] is lencharest
19:00:24 [Zakim]
+lencharest; got it
19:01:09 [Zakim]
19:01:38 [johnarwe_]
johnarwe_ has joined #sml
19:02:07 [lencharest]
Scribe: Len Charest
19:02:13 [lencharest]
ScribeNick: lencharest
19:02:31 [lencharest]
Meeting: SML WG Teleconference
19:02:42 [Sandy]
Sandy has joined #sml
19:02:51 [lencharest]
Chair: John Arwe
19:03:42 [Zakim]
19:05:05 [ginny]
ginny has joined #sml
19:05:35 [Zakim]
19:05:43 [lencharest]
rrsagent, make log public
19:06:01 [Zakim]
19:06:32 [Kumar]
Kumar has joined #sml
19:07:38 [MSM]
zakim, please call MSM-617
19:07:38 [Zakim]
ok, MSM; the call is being made
19:07:40 [Zakim]
19:08:20 [Zakim]
19:08:28 [MSM]
zakim, please call MSM-617
19:08:28 [Zakim]
ok, MSM; the call is being made
19:08:30 [Zakim]
19:08:55 [johnarwe_]
19:08:58 [lencharest]
Topic: Approval of minutes from 2009-01-15
19:09:41 [lencharest]
RESOLUTION: Minutes approved
19:09:49 [MSM]
MSM has changed the topic to: SML WG call, agenda
19:10:26 [lencharest]
Topic: Action 215
19:12:41 [lencharest]
No progress, but updates to speadsheet have been made by others
19:12:53 [lencharest]
John: Will close action 215
19:13:24 [lencharest]
Topic: Action 210
19:13:46 [lencharest]
MSM: Have draft wording for old namespace doc
19:13:51 [lencharest]
19:14:38 [MSM]
19:14:49 [MSM]
19:15:24 [lencharest]
MSM: Above URIs show current wording
19:18:42 [ginny]
ginny has joined #sml
19:20:47 [lencharest]
Len: Change all occurences of 'namespaces' to 'namespace'
19:21:05 [lencharest]
Otherwise, Group approves draft language
19:23:53 [lencharest]
Topic: Where should schema docs live?
19:24:17 [lencharest]
MSM: Webmaster put them under ns/ directory, along with namespace docs
19:25:49 [lencharest]
MSM: But I see no other schema docs in the ns/ directory
19:29:31 [lencharest]
MSM: Propose that we adopt policy of publishing "dated" schema URIs akin to the dated URIs for TRs
19:29:59 [lencharest]
RESOLUTION: Dated schema URIs will be implemented
19:30:22 [lencharest]
Topic: WG teleconference time going forward
19:31:11 [lencharest]
John: Propose 12:30pm-1:30pm Eastern on Mondays starting with first meeting in Feb
19:32:33 [lencharest]
RESOLUTION: WG teleconference will take place from 12:30pm-1:30pm Eastern on Mondays starting with first meeting in Feb
19:34:28 [lencharest]
Topic: Bug 6443 - German message text
19:35:32 [lencharest]
RESOLUTION: Text will be changed per description in bug text
19:35:42 [lencharest]
John: Bug updated as editorial
19:36:41 [lencharest]
Topic: Bug 6245 - SML locid example request from ITS Interest Group
19:36:54 [lencharest]
19:38:06 [lencharest]
Topic: Implementation report
19:38:57 [johnarwe_]
19:39:01 [lencharest]
Current rev of spreadsheet in CVS is 1.6
19:42:44 [lencharest]
Ginny: derefNV is about testing smlfn:deref outside a validator; will we have an implementation
19:43:50 [lencharest]
John: Depends on how we define the test
19:47:50 [lencharest]
John: One option is to say derefNV is not relevant for interop
19:48:14 [lencharest]
s/interop/demonstration of implementation experience
19:48:44 [lencharest]
Option two: change the definition of derefNV so that we don't need to test outside the context of a validator
19:52:18 [lencharest]
Ginny: Focus of tests is on SML validators
19:52:39 [lencharest]
John: Conclusion seems to be that derefNV is not relevant for SML interop
19:54:00 [lencharest]
Kumar: SML spec section 4.2.7 has note adressing smlfn:deref and interop
19:54:54 [lencharest]
MSM: There is value in separation of defn of smlfn:deref from SML validation; smlfn:deref is useful outside of validation
19:55:08 [lencharest]
MSM: reluctant to lose the derefNV feature
19:55:50 [lencharest]
Ginny: Would COSMOS serve as an implementation of derefNV because of how smlfn:deref is implemented?
19:59:13 [Zakim]
20:00:02 [lencharest]
John: Yes
20:11:42 [lencharest]
John: We have consensus to update the spreadsheet as described by
20:13:15 [lencharest]
Kumar will make change #1 -- adding a second expected results column to differentiate between implementations supporting the
20:13:15 [lencharest]
feature and one for those not supporting it
20:13:57 [johnarwe_]
20:19:19 [lencharest]
John: Text re row 19 actually applies to row 16
20:19:31 [lencharest]
Kumar: MS impl matches expected result for row 16
20:20:43 [lencharest]
John: Re row 29 -- Multiple sml:uris means not a valid SML ref; should we remove the test case?
20:21:44 [lencharest]
Kumar: suggest updating expected result instead
20:22:24 [lencharest]
Ginny: If test is discarded, then create a test that specifically addresses non-root elements
20:22:36 [johnarwe_]
20:26:42 [johnarwe_]
20:30:40 [lencharest]
John: There are many other tests that target non-root; shall we remove row 29?
20:30:48 [lencharest]
MSM: Let's just mark it invalid
20:31:26 [lencharest]
John: In the past, we've removed invalid tests
20:34:28 [lencharest]
John: For consistency, let's remove the test in row 29 (but preserve the row so that row numbers remain the same)
20:35:42 [lencharest]
John: Re row 76 --- need MS results
20:36:21 [lencharest]
Kumar: MS results are 76 is false, 77 is true
20:39:36 [lencharest]
John: Re 96-99 --- we should add remarks to suggest cosmos alter the tests so a non-supporting impl would find the model invalid
20:42:54 [lencharest]
John: How shall we define test pass? Percentage of tests where actual result equals expected result?
20:44:55 [lencharest]
MSM: W3C has no rule on this
20:45:43 [lencharest]
Topic: Transition to PR
20:46:01 [lencharest]
MSM: We need a "clean" copy of the spec that is ready to publish at any time
20:46:48 [lencharest]
MSM: We need an estimate from the editors on when we will have a ready-to-publish draft
20:48:28 [lencharest]
John: Shall we request transition to PR?
20:48:40 [lencharest]
John: Sanday has already said "yes"
20:48:50 [lencharest]
20:49:01 [lencharest]
John: We have consensus
20:49:31 [lencharest]
RESOLUTION: WG will request transition to PR status for SML and SML-IF specs
20:50:41 [lencharest]
Ginny: Outsantding editorial changes will be made within a week
20:50:58 [lencharest]
20:54:21 [johnarwe_]
20:54:33 [johnarwe_]
under "changes still needed"
20:54:45 [johnarwe_]
all have 2x - (--) in front
21:00:41 [Zakim]
21:00:45 [Zakim]
21:00:45 [Zakim]
21:00:45 [Zakim]
21:00:48 [Zakim]
21:00:50 [Zakim]
XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended
21:00:51 [Zakim]
Attendees were lencharest, johnarwe_, Sandy, Ginny_Smith, [Microsoft], MSM
21:00:56 [lencharest]
rrsagent, draft minutes
21:00:56 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate lencharest
21:22:15 [johnarwe_]
johnarwe_ has left #sml
22:03:53 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sml