IRC log of sml on 2007-12-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:00:23 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sml
19:00:23 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/12/13-sml-irc
19:00:28 [johnarwe]
zakim, who's here?
19:00:30 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sml
19:00:32 [Valentina]
Valentina has joined #sml
19:00:39 [johnarwe]
zakim, who's here?
19:00:39 [Zakim]
sorry, johnarwe, I don't know what conference this is
19:00:40 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Valentina, Zakim, RRSAgent, pratul, ginny, Kirk, johnarwe, Jim, MSM, trackbot-ng
19:00:44 [johnarwe]
zakim, this is sml
19:00:44 [Zakim]
ok, johnarwe; that matches XML_SMLWG()2:00PM
19:00:46 [Zakim]
+Kirk
19:00:59 [johnarwe]
zakim, who's here?
19:00:59 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Jim, [Microsoft], ??P6, Kirk
19:01:00 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Valentina, Zakim, RRSAgent, pratul, ginny, Kirk, johnarwe, Jim, MSM, trackbot-ng
19:01:01 [Jordan]
Jordan has joined #sml
19:01:01 [MSM]
zakim, please call MSM-Office
19:01:02 [Zakim]
ok, MSM; the call is being made
19:01:04 [Zakim]
+Valentina
19:01:06 [Zakim]
+MSM
19:01:07 [johnarwe]
zakim, ??P6 is me
19:01:10 [Zakim]
+johnarwe; got it
19:01:19 [MSM]
zakim, please call MSM-Office
19:01:19 [Zakim]
ok, MSM; the call is being made
19:01:21 [Zakim]
+MSM.a
19:01:35 [MSM]
zakim, drop MSM
19:01:35 [Zakim]
MSM is being disconnected
19:01:37 [Zakim]
-MSM
19:01:37 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.228.aaaa
19:01:39 [MSM]
zakim, drop MSM.a
19:01:39 [Zakim]
MSM.a is being disconnected
19:01:41 [Zakim]
-MSM.a
19:01:46 [Zakim]
+ginny
19:01:48 [MSM]
zakim, please call MSM-Office
19:01:48 [Zakim]
ok, MSM; the call is being made
19:01:50 [Zakim]
+MSM
19:01:54 [Zakim]
+Jordan
19:02:10 [Kirk]
meeting: SML WG Call December 13, 2007
19:02:22 [pratul]
Zakim, Microsoft is me
19:02:22 [Zakim]
+pratul; got it
19:02:33 [Sandy]
Sandy has joined #sml
19:02:34 [Zakim]
+Sandy
19:02:45 [Kirk]
agenda at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Dec/0107.html
19:03:06 [Kirk]
scribe: Kirk Wilson
19:03:22 [Kirk]
scribeNick: Kirk
19:04:02 [Kirk]
Chair: John Arwe & Pratul Dublish
19:05:19 [Kirk]
Regrets: MSM 24th & 31st.
19:05:36 [MSM]
Valentina regrets: 24-31
19:06:04 [ginny]
Ginny: regrets 17 and 24-31
19:07:04 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
19:07:13 [Kirk]
John: Raises question of whether we should have calls next week. Pratul to look at minutes
19:07:36 [Kirk]
Minutes not yet distributed or people did not have time to review.
19:07:56 [Kirk]
No new action ideas or bugs.
19:09:29 [Kirk]
Topic: 4772: Localization
19:09:40 [MSM]
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4772
19:11:04 [Kumar]
Kumar has joined #sml
19:11:06 [Kirk]
John: Any objection through comment #6?
19:11:52 [MSM]
zakim, who is making noise?
19:12:02 [Zakim]
MSM, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: johnarwe (65%), pratul (5%), +1.408.228.aaaa (85%), [Microsoft] (48%)
19:12:09 [MSM]
zakim, mute aaa
19:12:09 [Zakim]
sorry, MSM, I do not know which phone connection belongs to aaa
19:12:13 [MSM]
zakim, mute aaaa
19:12:13 [Zakim]
+1.408.228.aaaa should now be muted
19:12:32 [Sandy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
19:12:32 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Jim, pratul, johnarwe, Kirk, Valentina, MSM, +1.408.228.aaaa (muted), ginny, Jordan, Sandy, [Microsoft]
19:13:08 [MSM]
zakim, aaaa is probably Zulah
19:13:08 [Zakim]
+Zulah?; got it
19:13:15 [MSM]
zakim, unmute Zulah
19:13:15 [Zakim]
Zulah? should no longer be muted
19:13:37 [Kirk]
No objection.
19:13:59 [Kirk]
MSM has submitted editorial clarifications, comment #9.
19:14:12 [zulah]
zulah has joined #sml
19:14:29 [Kirk]
...Any objection ot moving these changes to editorial. Editors should look at comment #9.
19:14:47 [Kirk]
s/Any/No
19:15:25 [MSM]
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4992
19:15:39 [Kirk]
Topic: 4992: Object Identity http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4992
19:16:23 [Kirk]
(MSM: I'll catch up eventually--response time is a little slow for me right now.)
19:17:19 [Kirk]
Ginny: Sandy has comments in Comment #20. Mostly editorial changes.
19:17:54 [Kirk]
John: Any objection to accepting comment #20 as editorial
19:18:34 [Kirk]
...Accept comments in #19 and #20.
19:19:27 [Kirk]
Resolution: Move 4992 to Editorial and accept changes in #19 & 20.
19:20:22 [Kirk]
Topic: 5291 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5291
19:21:01 [Kirk]
Ginny: Recommends not backing out any of the changes and notes that Kirk recommended a rephrasing of a sentence.
19:21:52 [Kirk]
John: Proposal is to accept comment #10 and moved to editorial
19:22:04 [MSM]
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5294
19:22:19 [Kirk]
Resolution: This is editorial and not needsReview and make change in comment #10.
19:22:53 [johnarwe]
resolution above is re: 5291. now beginning to discuss 5294
19:23:25 [Kirk]
Topic: 5294: explanation of smilif:dataType as skip
19:23:47 [Kirk]
Resolution: 5294 is Resolved, Closed
19:23:52 [MSM]
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5301
19:24:27 [Kirk]
TOpic: 5301:
19:24:36 [Kirk]
Resolution: Resolved
19:24:52 [MSM]
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5318
19:25:00 [Kirk]
Topic: 5318
19:25:36 [Kirk]
Resolution: Resolved. Fixed.
19:26:04 [Kirk]
Topic: 4644: Allows assertion on local elements and types
19:26:42 [Kirk]
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4644
19:27:37 [Kirk]
Sandy's and Kumar's comments. Kumar advises that there are a long number of changes.
19:28:01 [Kirk]
Ginny: Did review but did not go into it deeply.
19:28:36 [Kirk]
Resolution: Up through comment #5, we will accept. If new issues, there should be new issue opened.
19:28:57 [Kirk]
John: Any objection to making comment #6 editorial.
19:29:25 [Kirk]
Kumar: is Ok with making it editorial but will discuss with Sandy.
19:29:54 [Kirk]
Resolution: 4644 is editorial.
19:31:11 [johnarwe]
5247
19:31:17 [MSM]
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5247
19:31:19 [Kirk]
Topic: 5247:
19:32:16 [Kirk]
Kumar put in text several days ago.
19:33:52 [Kirk]
MSM: Ambiguity in the phrase "not part of interchange set".
19:34:20 [Kirk]
Sandy: either it is there or it is not.
19:35:53 [Kirk]
MSM: Simpler to require data to have a child and base64 data be non-empty.
19:37:00 [Kirk]
John: We need to allow for tombstone documents. If change prevents this, then it will undo other issue resolutions.
19:37:48 [Kirk]
MSM: Agrees
19:38:31 [Kirk]
Resolution: 5247 is Fixed.
19:38:47 [Kirk]
Topic: 4636 Fragment Idenyifiers.
19:39:21 [Kirk]
s/Idenyifers/Identifiers
19:39:46 [Kirk]
Kumar: This is just editing some of the words.
19:39:58 [Kirk]
Resolution: Fixed.
19:40:42 [Kirk]
Topic: 4774:
19:41:01 [Kirk]
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4774
19:41:19 [Kirk]
MSM: Will read (starting at comment #14)
19:41:57 [Kirk]
Ginny: Suggesting we can step through Sandy's comments in #17.
19:43:05 [Kirk]
John: inside 17, subcomment 9: rewording regarding schemaComplete ambiguity.
19:44:04 [MSM]
q+ to ask whether there is an algorithm for determining whether a schema document is or is not 'required'
19:44:28 [Kirk]
Ginny: Confusing
19:45:47 [Kirk]
Kirk: the name may help to resolve ambiguity.
19:46:04 [Kirk]
John: we can resolve after LC.
19:46:34 [johnarwe]
...the part in comment 12 where a rename of the syntax is suggested, not the whole thing
19:46:42 [Kirk]
Ginny: name is OK, if we define precisely. We should change definition to reflect Sandy's intention.
19:46:51 [MSM]
q-
19:49:12 [MSM]
[I wonder if the description could be "The SML-IF document is not known to be schema-complete".
19:49:13 [Kirk]
Resolution: rewording of 9 in 17 is editorial
19:49:46 [Kirk]
Resolution: point 3 in comment 9 in 17 is editorial
19:50:13 [Kirk]
point 12 in comment 9 in 17
19:50:51 [Kirk]
Any objecdtion to adding wildcard spec to namespace binding type.
19:51:12 [Kirk]
Resolution: No objection.
19:51:20 [Kirk]
point 15 in comment 9 in 17
19:51:41 [Kirk]
Proposal: have a default="false"
19:52:42 [Kirk]
Pratul: Most common case will be schemaComplete="true".
19:53:23 [Kirk]
Sandy: explains rationale behind default for schemaComplete="false"
19:53:42 [Kirk]
Pratul: Agrees
19:54:54 [Kirk]
MSM: Status quo treats it as false; but it doesn't address Pratul's suggestion that this is behavior we want to promote.
19:55:23 [Kirk]
Pratul: Withdraws objection.
19:56:22 [Kirk]
MSM: Thinks it is better if there were default="true" or make attribute required.
19:57:03 [Kirk]
Ginny: Support required attribute
19:57:44 [Kirk]
MSM: if default is true, then any incompleteness will be flagged during validation.
19:57:58 [Kirk]
s/required/required an no default
19:58:10 [zulah]
I prefer default="true"
19:58:16 [Kirk]
Kumar; Supports required an no default.
19:59:06 [Kirk]
Proposal: adding default and making value 'False"
19:59:21 [Kirk]
...Objections from MSM and Zulah
20:00:03 [Kirk]
Proposal: add default and making value "false"
20:00:19 [Kirk]
Ginny and Kirk object
20:00:35 [ginny]
s/false/true/
20:00:52 [Kirk]
Kumar does not object but prefers third proposal
20:01:13 [Kirk]
Proposal: make schemaComplete required and no default value
20:01:37 [Kirk]
Resolution: 17.9.15: Make attribute Required with no default value.
20:03:54 [johnarwe]
proposed change: steps 6 and 7 are applied in current draft only if schemabindings element is used. should also apply if no such element is present or if the consumer does not support schema bindings
20:04:03 [Kirk]
Comment 17.14.1: Schema location--if look at schema binding uses alias. Proposal: same logic is to be used when there is no schema binding or the user chooses not to use it.
20:04:45 [johnarwe]
6 and 7 describe the processing for schemaLocation on include, redefine, xsi:, import
20:06:50 [johnarwe]
current draft is somewhat different from proposal. restructuring probably required to be clear when each rule applies.
20:07:58 [Kirk]
Kunar: It seems that everyone agrees to the principle; need to be considered by editors.
20:08:00 [Jim]
Jim has joined #sml
20:09:06 [Kirk]
Resolution: Accept 17.14.1 for section 5.5
20:09:53 [Kirk]
Kumar: Processing of redefines/include will be the same.
20:10:05 [johnarwe]
so that "no schema bindings" handling of schemalocation agrees with case when schema bindings are there
20:10:15 [johnarwe]
...and the consumer supports them
20:10:46 [Kirk]
MSM: Agreement seems to conflict with 3.d and 3.c in current editor's draft.
20:10:58 [Kirk]
John: this should be a separate question.
20:12:13 [Kirk]
John: instruction to editors- Kumar is pointing out that nesting is incorrect is 5.5.
20:12:36 [MSM]
[I apologize; I think I led us into a rat-hole. I overlooked the condition in 2.c/d and 3.b/c on whether the IF document is schema-complete or not.
20:12:53 [MSM]
]
20:14:11 [Kirk]
17.14.3 for Kumar
20:15:19 [Kirk]
John, see comment 16. This says what you want.
20:15:38 [Kirk]
...Editorial restructuring is required.
20:16:41 [Kirk]
Proposal 17.14.3 go to Editors to resolve. (Editorial)
20:17:35 [Kirk]
John: need structural change so as to make sure the case is covered
20:18:14 [Kirk]
Zulah: and MSM want review of any proposal
20:18:47 [johnarwe]
comments 15 and 16 of 4774 suggest some ways to fix
20:18:54 [Kirk]
Resolution: 17.14.3 give to Editorials. Editors will propose solution for review.
20:19:59 [Kirk]
Topic: 4687 Handling DTDs
20:20:03 [Kirk]
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4687
20:20:43 [Kirk]
Proposal: Allow based64 for all documents, require for those containing DTDs
20:21:50 [johnarwe]
current text: There
20:21:51 [johnarwe]
can be at most one document embedded
20:21:53 [MSM]
s/can be/MUST be/ (twice)
20:22:02 [Kirk]
MSM: bottom at point 1:recommends changed to statement: There MUST be at most one.
20:22:08 [johnarwe]
msm proposes: There MUST be at most one document embedded
20:22:13 [MSM]
also for point 2
20:22:41 [Kirk]
Zulah: MSM's comments apply to both points 1 and 2
20:23:06 [Kirk]
Resolution: 4687 is Editorial as amended by MSM above.
20:23:14 [ginny_]
ginny_ has joined #sml
20:23:56 [Kirk]
Topic: 5091: Distinguish normative vs. non-mornative
20:24:11 [Kirk]
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5091
20:25:06 [Kirk]
Ginny: These changes assume normative unless explicitly marked non-normative.
20:25:33 [Kirk]
...We need to reference the example appendices in text.
20:26:13 [Kirk]
Valentina: Original text did not this necessary.
20:27:04 [Kirk]
Valentina: Original text did not make this necessary
20:27:43 [Kirk]
Resolution: We accept proposed 5091 as wholly fixed. Open new bugs for changes.
20:28:17 [Kirk]
Topic: 5303: Recognize SML URI scheme without schema assessment
20:28:58 [Kirk]
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5303
20:30:26 [Kirk]
Ginny: Question regarding how to process 2 URIs.
20:30:52 [Kirk]
Sandy: the SML URI does not flag an error because it might be some other scheme.
20:31:22 [Kirk]
MSM: Have we created a situation in which some erroraneous schemes will not be identified.
20:31:47 [Sandy]
zakim, mute me
20:31:47 [Zakim]
Sandy should now be muted
20:31:52 [Kirk]
John: This is a situation because of schemes with overlapping content.
20:32:42 [Kirk]
John: two editorial comments in comment #1 and comments 4 and 5
20:33:44 [Kirk]
Resolution: No objection to making 5303 editorial.
20:34:28 [Kirk]
Topic: 5063: Inheritance of SML Constraints
20:34:39 [Kirk]
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5063
20:34:58 [Kirk]
John: Discussion on last call.
20:35:11 [Sandy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:35:11 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Jim, pratul, johnarwe, Kirk, Valentina, MSM, Zulah?, ginny, Jordan, Sandy, [Microsoft]
20:35:27 [Sandy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:35:27 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Jim, pratul, johnarwe, Kirk, Valentina, MSM, Zulah?, ginny, Jordan, Sandy (muted), [Microsoft]
20:36:10 [Kirk]
MSM: Continue to fear complexity to write to enforce this. There is a question of alignment, but it is a question of alignment in a design pattern rather than technical matter.
20:37:26 [Kirk]
MSM: Only Type assignment needs to be preserved across restriction. Not a contradiction for us to state that target constraints across restriction, but rules will be hard to write.
20:37:59 [zulah]
I can't understand Sandy
20:38:35 [MSM]
SG: i feared the complexity, too, but now I support the proposal.
20:38:54 [Kirk]
I'm also having trouble following Sandy's discussion.
20:39:45 [Kirk]
Sandy: Rules will be hard to read, problem only for implementers.
20:40:47 [Kirk]
Kumar: Agrees to with Sandy that implementers could keep alignment with schema.
20:41:34 [Kirk]
Ginny: Ok with Kumar's proposal.
20:42:15 [zulah]
The issues that SML has with inheritance and assertions are applicable to all Schema users and should be fed into Schema 1.1
20:42:32 [Kirk]
Zulah: Issues are general issues with schema inheritance.
20:42:38 [zulah]
Much of the design for SML's inheritance is better factored into Schema 1.1
20:42:51 [zulah]
This should be sent to the Schema 1.1 group which should address this issue. Not SML
20:43:40 [Kirk]
Zulah: This issue should remain open at this point.
20:44:42 [Kirk]
Zulah: Thinks that it will be difficult for SML to get this correct. Resolution belongs in SML WG.
20:45:22 [Kirk]
Zulah: Clarifies that this concerns pertains only to this issue.
20:45:28 [pratul]
Kirk, Zulah said that "Resolution belongs in XML Schema 1.1 WG"
20:46:12 [Kirk]
Zulah: Inheritance issues belongs to Schema WG 1.1
20:47:13 [Kirk]
Zulah: Issues exist for all schema issues and the work be handed off to Schema WG.
20:47:25 [MSM]
[The problem we have labeled 'alignment with XML Schema' is precisely the fact that in XML Schema, constraints on elements contained in complex types are not guaranteed to be preserved across complex type restriction. If XML Schema had a clearer story on that topic, then the task of SML in describing this constraint on the target* constraints would be far simpler.]
20:48:15 [Kirk]
Zulah: Objects to closing this particular bug and have more discussion.
20:48:35 [MSM]
s/and have/and would like to have/
20:48:47 [Kirk]
Pratul: We don't have a dependence on Schema 1.1.
20:49:10 [Kirk]
Kumar: This will keep our group hanging for a long time.
20:49:44 [Kirk]
John: Strawpoll. Who would object closing this bug as Kumar proposed per sandy's comment in #7?
20:50:28 [Kirk]
MSM: there is an architectural issue here. It is premature to close this bug at this time.
20:52:20 [Kirk]
Jim: No problem with statement in comment #6. We need to come up with a schedule for closing this and plan.
20:53:02 [Jim]
I suggest we not close it without entertaining the possibility that another option be taken.
20:53:06 [Kirk]
Ginny: We need to support the request not to resolve this issue due to objection from Zulah and MSM.
20:53:43 [Kirk]
Jim: HP does not have issues as laid out by Kumar.
20:54:12 [Kirk]
Kumar: It doesn't make sense to have issues addressed by Schema. 1.1 WG
20:54:22 [Kirk]
Kumar: What is technical issue?
20:54:55 [Kirk]
Zulah: Technical issue is that we need to consider architectural issue. These are larger than SML WG.
20:55:40 [Kirk]
Kumar: What IS the architectural issue here?
20:56:02 [zulah]
We believe that going to LC with will slow the progress of SML
20:56:09 [MSM]
Zulah: the technical issue is the one identified in 5063: inheritance of constraints on element declarations across complex type restriction
20:56:34 [Kirk]
Kumar: We are not changing XML Schema constraints, this is an issue of SML constraints that are not handled by Schema 1.1 WG.
20:57:25 [Kirk]
Zulah: BEA's contention, if Schema 1.1 addressed these issues, then SML wouldn't have to.
20:57:57 [Kirk]
...BEA does not yet have a proposal at this point. It needs more discussion.
20:58:21 [Kirk]
Kumar: This is not an Schema 1.1 architectural issue.
20:59:39 [Kirk]
MSM: Complex type restriction propagate across restriction, but contraints on child element declarations do not propagate.
21:00:08 [Kirk]
MSM: In 5063, we want our constraints to behave different.
21:00:31 [Kirk]
...Therefore, Schema has gotten it wrong.
21:00:34 [Zakim]
-Kirk
21:01:06 [Kirk]
I have lost telephone connection. Can someone continue recording this the discussion?
21:01:20 [johnarwe]
will do
21:01:29 [johnarwe]
time to end anyway
21:02:12 [Kirk]
I can't get back on because the "conference is restricted"
21:02:17 [johnarwe]
MSM: note that when doing derivation by restriction in schema, constraints on types are automatically inherited and constraints on elements are not automatically inherited.
21:02:50 [Kirk]
Let me know when I can generate the minutes.
21:04:53 [Zakim]
-Sandy
21:06:19 [Kirk]
Is the discussion still going on?
21:08:04 [johnarwe]
next meeting Jan 3
21:08:49 [johnarwe]
request to BEA to email some details on their issue, including a proposal, while people are out next 3 weeks.
21:09:21 [Zakim]
-Jordan
21:10:25 [johnarwe]
Zulah notes BEA has forced closure next several weeks, so may need to wait several weeks into Jan for a thorough proposal.
21:10:27 [Zakim]
-pratul
21:10:28 [Zakim]
-[Microsoft]
21:10:30 [Zakim]
-ginny
21:10:32 [Zakim]
-Valentina
21:10:34 [Zakim]
-Zulah?
21:10:36 [Jim]
Jim has left #sml
21:10:38 [Zakim]
-MSM
21:10:41 [Zakim]
-Jim
21:10:51 [Zakim]
-johnarwe
21:10:53 [Zakim]
XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended
21:10:54 [Zakim]
Attendees were Jim, Kirk, Valentina, MSM, johnarwe, MSM.a, +1.408.228.aaaa, ginny, Jordan, pratul, Sandy, [Microsoft], Zulah?
21:11:07 [Kirk]
rssagent, generate minutes
21:12:08 [Kirk]
rssagent, make log public
21:20:29 [Kirk]
see my email that I just sent. The issue ended immediate after you hung up.
21:20:57 [Kirk]
I meant "session" rather than "issue". Have "issue on my mind.
21:23:23 [johnarwe]
rrsagent, generate minutes
21:23:23 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/12/13-sml-minutes.html johnarwe
21:23:33 [johnarwe]
rrsagent, make log public
21:24:54 [Kirk]
Ok Now it's working.
21:25:21 [Kirk]
And I was able to access the minutes--WHEW!! That really scared me.
21:29:40 [Kirk]
I don't think the rrsagent likes me :-)
21:32:06 [johnarwe]
johnarwe has left #sml
21:37:30 [MSM]
RRSAgent, please make minutes
21:37:30 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/12/13-sml-minutes.html MSM
21:38:02 [MSM]
sorry about that; didn't mean to overlay anything.
23:05:36 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sml