W3C

- DRAFT -

W3C SML Teleconference of 2007-12-10

10 Dec 2007

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Jim, Kirk, +1.905.413.aaaa, [Microsoft], johnarwe, Valentina, ginny, MSM, Zulah_Eckert, Kumar
Regrets
Jordan
Chair
Pratul
Scribe
Virginia Smith

Contents


 

 

<scribe> scribe: Virginia Smith

<scribe> scribenick: ginny

<pratul> Agenda at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Dec/0085.html

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5305

Pratul: charter does not allow for a note from WG

Zulah: we voted on this in the last meeting

MSM: disagrees with Pratul interpretation of charter

Kumar: will a non-normative appendix affect LC?
... is there a degree of non-normative in text?

Kirk: if appendix is a note or appendix, we can make normative statements such as EPR scheme MUST be done this way if you are doing a EPR scheme

MSM: problematic in a Note or appendix

Pratul: advice from W3c staff contact was that our charter allows a note to be created for EPR scheme

John: non-normative appendix or note should work the same way

<MSM> [I apologize if my remarks on last week's call were not wholly clear. From a process point of view, changes to a non-normative appendix can be made after the spec goes to Last Call, without requiring that the document be issued in a new Last Call. I believe I said that clearly last week.

<MSM> In addition, I expressed the view that I think doing it as a Note is more convenient. As an individual member of the WG, I think it's not good practice to issue a Last Call that has material we believe to be unfinished, incomplete, or wrong. That's a general question of good WG practice, though, not a question of the W3C process.]

<MSM> [To answer Kumar's question about the amount of work involved: if the material is the same, presumably the editorial work involved in making it correct is the same, whether the material is included in a non-normative appendix or is used to make up a Note.]

Kumar: objection is not to the note but to the precedent

Pratul: does anyone disagree with marking the bug as editorial to create the note

Resolution: Kirk agrees to create the note and we are marking the bug as resolved/fixed

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5063

ginny: is this proposal aligned with schema (mentioned in comment #5)

Kumar: not in inheritance of particle restriction

MSM: is problematic; simpler to say schema author should manually specify the constraint
... logically consistent but cost may be high

Kumar: this bug covers cases not covered in the spec.

<MSM> In XSDL, nillability and default values on local elements in a restriction are not constrained to agree with those for corresponding elements local to the base type.

<MSM> In XSDL, there ARE constraints for the type assigned to the elements.

<MSM> I think that SML would be simpler and thus easier to understand if we made targetType behave the way nillability does.

zulah: doing nothing is not an option here

<MSM> There is additional complexity needed to cover the cases not covered successfully in the current draft; I think it illustrates that the cost/benefit ratio for this constraint is not a good one.

<MSM> If I am alone in feeling this way, I will accede to the will of the group. (I won't "lie down in the road" over it.)

Valentina: has use cases for this; wants to keep it.

<Valentina> MSM I am doing that ( review with Sandy )

<Kumar> A comment about my objection to adding EPR as a Note:

<Kumar> We discussed this issue in depth. My objection to the note was based on the fear that our creating a W3C note will set a precedent. This precedent could be used to add more things (as notes or otherwise) later on. Michael clarified that since EPR was there in the member submission and since it exists in the editor's copy today, converting it to a note is not really adding anything new and thus does not add a precedent. If that is true,

<Kumar> I do not have objection to creating an EPR note.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.128 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/12/10 22:05:17 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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/member/staff contact/
Succeeded: s/marking/marking the bug/
Found Scribe: Virginia Smith
Found ScribeNick: ginny
Default Present: Jim, Kirk, +1.905.413.aaaa, [Microsoft], johnarwe, Valentina, ginny, MSM, Zulah_Eckert, Kumar
Present: Jim Kirk +1.905.413.aaaa [Microsoft] johnarwe Valentina ginny MSM Zulah_Eckert Kumar
Regrets: Jordan
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Dec/0085.html
Got date from IRC log name: 10 Dec 2007
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/12/10-sml-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]