<pratul> Agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Dec/0002.html

<johnarwe> scribe: Kumar

<scribe> scribenick: Kumar

Approval of minutes from previous meeting

Pratul: is there any objection to the minutes?

no objections heard.

Pratul: minutes are approved
... W3C has deadline for publication on 12/21/2007
... given that it takes about 5 days for the webmaster to go through the publication process, we should have goal to send the LC draft to webmaster by 12/14
... LC does not mean that no further discussions are possible. It only means that the WG has no more open issues. New issues can be brought up by the community.

Review and attempt consensus on the following needsReview bugs

bug# 4675

ginny: I have second thoughts on the the 2 levels of compliance. I changed my mind and I believe there should only be a single level. This is better for compliance.

Pratul: Zulah has asked to defer the discussion on EPR scheme and the compliance level bug.

Kumar: ginny, can you add a specific proposal for 4675?

ginny: yes

bug# 4687

Pratul: any objections to the changes to 4687?
... no objections heard. Mark it as fixed

bug# 4770

Pratul: any objections?
... no objections heard. Please mark as fixed.

bug# 4992

Kirk: Is the sentence "Whether new schemes satisfy these conditions will be

clear from their scheme definitions." clear enough? I think we should change it to something more specific/positive.

<ginny> Fix per comment #12 to include rewording of last sentence in bullet #1 to state that scheme authors should specify whether the scheme satisfies condition a and b.

Pratul: Agreed. Are there objections to other changes?
... no objection heard.

ginny: I will mark it back as editorial.

bug# 5106

Pratul: Zulah wants to discuss EPR scheme. We should defer the discussion to Thu call.

bug# 5291

Kumar: I am not sure why we need to add this text. Consistency of ref schemes is only relevant in the context of reference resolution. The text to be added is already covered under reference resolution.
... at least we should change the section title to reflect the fact that the section is about comparing ref targets. This could be done as a part of the bug# 4992

bug# 5294

Pratul: This is about adding a comment to the schema. Any objections?
... No objections heard. Resolve as editorial.

Kumar: One question about changes for bug# 5291. There used to be a section that described the steps involved in reference resolution. This section seems to have been removed. This section should be put back.
... I will open a bug for this.

Pratul: Let us continue the discussion on Thu. We should try to get closure on all issues at that time.

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128  of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/fixed/editorial/
Found Scribe: Kumar
Inferring ScribeNick: Kumar
Found ScribeNick: Kumar

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Jordan Kirk Kumar MSM ginny johnarwe joined pratul scribenick sml trackbot-ng
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

Got date from IRC log name: 3 Dec 2007
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/12/03-sml-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.