14:13:05 RRSAgent has joined #sml 14:13:05 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-sml-irc 14:13:11 zeckert has joined #sml 14:13:24 scribenick: zeckert 14:13:32 meeting: SML face to face meeting, day 2 14:14:16 pratul has joined #sml 14:14:26 chair:johnarwe 14:14:35 chair: johnarwe 14:14:57 scribe: zeckert 14:16:48 Zakim has joined #sml 14:16:53 zakim, who's here? 14:16:53 sorry, MSM_, I don't know what conference this is 14:16:55 On IRC I see pratul, zeckert, RRSAgent, Valentina, johnarwe, Kirk, Sandy, MSM_, trackbot-ng 14:16:59 Meeting: SML F2F 14:17:24 ginny has joined #sml 14:22:14 Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5379 14:23:09 Kumar has joined #sml 14:31:34 MSM: sees this as a trade off in design vs. practicality. He is willing to let this go and remain with the current proposal. 14:31:36 Ginny: Based on the acyclic document, she doesn't think its a good idea to move acyclic to elements. Votes to leave this as-is. 14:31:37 Sandy: said in minutes that he had a slight preference for the existing spec. And if we had to change for consistency, he would move to all on elements. 14:31:39 johnarwe: Sounds like concensus. Does anyone object to not changing what the spec says for bug 5379. 14:31:40 MSM: would like to suggest that we close this as WONTFIX 14:31:42 johnarwe: Is it the concensus of the group that closing 5379 as WONTFIX is the current tradeoff for resolving this bug? 14:31:43 RESOLUTION: close bug #5379 as WONTFIX 14:31:45 Valentina: suggests adding rational for decision into spec 14:31:46 There were multiple suggestions that we leave the rational in the bug and minutes 14:31:48 johnarwe: Does anyone object to not adding the rational to the spec? 14:32:11 s/tional/tionale/ 14:32:13 [Minutes of yesterday: http://www.w3.org/2008/01/21-sml-minutes.html] 14:32:53 RESOLUTION:The rationale will not be added to the spec 14:32:56 s/.rational in/rationale in/ 14:33:06 s/rational in/rationale in/ 14:34:20 Jim has joined #sml 14:37:09 rrsagent, make log public 14:41:48 http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2007/xml/sml/build/sml.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8 14:48:53 Topic: Substantive issues raised by reviewers - SML spec 14:48:54 Ginny: Section 1, this sentence "SML uses XML Schema [XML Schema Structures, XML Schema Datatypes] to define constraints on the structure of data in a model." is redundant with the content above it at the line stating with "1. Schema". Wants to remove the sentence (which is 3 paragraphs or so below the sentence that starts with "1. Schema". 14:49:43 Jim2 has joined #sml 14:52:30 ginny: Section 2.2 Terminology. In the definition of "Rule bindings", the definition implies that you can have schematron rules on schema documentsT? Is that correctT? 14:52:31 agreement that y]this is corweqrweqect 14:54:00 scribenick: MSM 14:54:05 scribenick: MSM_ 14:56:29 We discussed several points raised by Ginny and John, deciding whether to open issues for them or not. 14:57:00 - Is it a problem to have Schematron rules that apply to schema documents? 14:57:13 - Do we really want separate sml and smlfn namespaces? 14:57:44 (Probably; no consensus for change.) 14:58:41 - Sec 4.1.2 "SML Null reference" and "resolved SML reference" and "unresolved SML reference" seems non-parallel. "null SML reference" ? (yes) 15:00:09 Jim has joined #sml 15:01:32 - Sec. 4.2.1 "then the model MUST be dclared invalid" 15:05:13 ZULAH has joined #sml 15:11:03 Scribe: Zulah 15:11:17 ScribeNick: ZULAH 15:14:32 scribenick: MSM_ 15:14:40 Longish discussion of 4.2.1. 15:15:14 Sentiment in favor of changing all places where the spec says "... must be declared invalid" to make them impose positive requirements on models 15:16:04 Sentiment to remove the second sentence of 4.2.1 (as redundant with first sentence); discussion of deref() function will need to be clear about relation of validity to deref(). 15:18:12 In section 7, either (a) add a specific clause referring to satisfaction of the reference semantics, or (b) replace most of the definition with a blanket statement that conforming SML models must satisfy all of the normative constraints applicable to models in this spec. 15:19:01 If (b), then probably also move the existing specific list of particular constraint classes into a Note (it's useful, even if we want the normative statement to be a broader blanket statement). 15:19:30 s/all places where/all places (e.g. including 4.2.2) where/ 15:19:46 scribenick: zeckert 15:19:58 scribenick: zulah 15:21:13 ScribeNick: ZULAH 15:21:15 johnarwe: Section 4.2.3. Question is, as written, this applies only to model validators. Not sure that we want to restrict this section to only apply to model validators vs. things that are doing something narrower in scope. 15:22:00 Jim has joined #sml 15:29:46 johnarwe: we also have the name "model processor" with no definition. Suggests that we remove the term "model validator" from section 4.2.3 15:29:48 Kumar: if we remove model validator, it will require every processor to do this. If it is there, it does not preclude others from following the rules 15:29:50 Sandy: suggests that we go through spec and ensure that model validator is change to read "this must be true" and model processor similarly. Essentially refrase in terms of the data. 15:29:52 MSM: question is whether we are talking about a property of the processor or the data. Should not talk about property of the data by specifying what a processor should do. 15:29:54 Group sentiment is that this is covered by the previous bug. 15:43:30 ZULAH has joined #sml 15:44:15 Jim has joined #sml 15:49:24 ginny: Section 4.2.4, is it necessary to say "and/or be expressed in different ways"? 15:49:26 MSM: If we leave this out then, then we have the issue that we don't cover the case where the same scheme can be expressed in multiple ways. 15:49:28 johnarwe: suggests that we add in section 4.2.3, that a single element can be targeted by multiple reference scheme instances... In general, thinks that at minimum this text belongs in the reference scheme section. 15:49:30 Proposal is to remove the text "and/or be expressed in different ways" or the entire containing sentence and placing similar text in Section 4.2.3. 15:59:43 ginny: Section 4.2.6, sentence starting "In particular, for each node..." interpretation issue 15:59:45 If you need to know order or which derefs fail for example, then you need to use 15:59:47 ginny: same section, if deref doesn't attempt to resolve any scheme, then no target is returned. So you can have an empty deref function that satisfies this. 15:59:49 The group didn't feel strongly that the latter needed to be outlawed. 15:59:51 The group feels that the section is correct. 15:59:52 node-set is a well defined XPath term 15:59:54 MSM: In #2, there may be an opportunity to clarify in the body of section #2 15:59:55 Sandy: We iterate over references and then for each over schemes. 15:59:57 MSM: suggests adding, for a-e, "for each reference node in the input-set" 15:59:58 A bug will be opened 16:04:42 ginny: 4.3, in #1, the phrase "one and the only" 16:04:43 Group has previously adopted a proposal to fix. This is in bug 4992. 16:12:16 Section 4.3.1 16:12:18 ginny: wants to move #2 after #4. 16:12:20 suggestion that #4 could be before #1 and not part of the three rules. 16:12:21 Sandy: if we move the syntax to be before the rules for recognizing the scheme, this could cause confusion. You first recognize the scheme and then check if the syntax is correct. Suggests #4 be included in #2. 16:14:55 johnarwe: Section 4.31., #1 Define the smlxpath1() scheme. What have we done about registration and at what point in the process would we do this? 16:14:57 ACTION: Kumar will register the smlxpath1() scheme 16:14:57 Created ACTION-157 - Will register the smlxpath1() scheme [on Kumar Pandit - due 2008-01-29]. 16:18:19 Section 4.4 16:18:20 johnarwe: In 4.4.1.1, #3 is not consistent with text in 4.4 "The value of {acyclic} for xs:anyType is false" 16:18:22 Sandy: These are talking about different things and the spec is correct as is. 16:21:16 Zakim has left #sml 16:22:10 Jim has joined #sml 16:23:01 Section 4.4.1 16:23:03 ginny: first sentence. 16:23:05 johnarwe: suggested rewording in bug 5399 16:24:19 Jim2 has joined #sml 16:34:43 johnarwe: Section 4.4.1.3. bullet #2, Should this be read to mean that documents always end up being the nodes in the graph. 16:34:45 johnarwe will open a bug for the question 16:36:09 [w.r.t. table 4-2 at end of 4.4.3: could we tweak the stylesheets to get some padding into those cells and give the words a little more room to breathe?] 16:36:25 johnarwe: table 4-2 in section 4.4.3, the table is non-normative. two questions (1) it does say what "Check" means, (2) for the non-reference row does not see where the "Satisfied" values followed from instance validity rules. 16:39:09 MSM: There is an "if" here, if I satisfy these things then valid, should this be an "iff"? 16:39:20 Jim has joined #sml 16:39:30 s/MSM/MSM (attempting to channel Sandy):/ 17:02:15 suggestion that we should make the table normative. That this would resolve any potential confusion. 17:02:17 Sandy: Similar issue in other sections Section 4.5.1.2 #4 17:02:19 MSM: blanket rule (if we didn't say anything, we didn't mean anything) is probably better than having to explicitly say this in all appropriate places in the spec. 17:03:01 rssagent, make minutes 17:03:53 rrsagent, make minutes 17:03:53 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-sml-minutes.html ZULAH 17:42:47 ZULAH has joined #sml 17:55:43 ginny has joined #sml 17:57:40 Kirk has joined #sml 17:59:59 Valentina has joined #sml 18:02:41 MSM has joined #sml 18:04:49 scribe: Kirk Wilson 18:04:58 scribeNick: Kirk 18:05:44 John: Review of previous discussion 18:06:24 ..."logicians" analyze this as if A then B. And there is an inconsistency with the table and that inconsistent must be reserved. 18:07:45 pratul has joined #sml 18:08:29 ...others where arguing about what we were defining. See definition of conformance in section 7. When A is false, no normative condition in the text has been violated regarding validity. Thus, the model would still be considered valid. 18:08:56 ...Thus, first row of table is irrelevant to validity 18:10:10 Jim: If rule doesn't apply, then it has been satisfied. 18:11:21 MSM: If A then x must be y. 18:13:16 ...rephrase: It must be the case that if A then B (B = x does y) 18:13:46 Just that statement (If A then B) is true when A is false. 18:15:57 John: We will take the discussion off line. Disagreement as to whether If A then x must be y, then it is OK without change of meaning to say "It must be the case...." 18:17:47 MSM: If we had something more explicit, readers wouldn't have to replicate this discussion. We need something more explicit so readers don't need up arguing about Boolean logic. 18:18:49 TOPIC: (john) 4.5.1.1 "In addition to SMLO identity constraints..." 18:18:59 Jim has joined #sml 18:19:49 John: could clauses t 2 and 3 conflict? 18:21:49 ...Conflict= identity constraints because of groups with same names. 18:22:06 Sandy: We can't have the same name because they are in the same symbol space. 18:22:50 TOPIC: (Ginny) 4.5.1.2 deref function at beginning of expression 18:23:33 Ginny: Do we need parenthesis ariybd expression. 18:23:47 MSM: Don't need, but won't hurt. 18:24:24 Ginny: And Kumar, we should use parenthesis. Sandy adds further instances where pare nthesis might be used. 18:24:49 TOPIC: (Ginny) 5.1 User-defined constraint. 18:25:08 MSM: Kill word "User defined". Just say Constraint can be specified. 18:26:35 Ginny: Sentence before 5.2. 18:27:07 John: This is not implementation-dependent. It is in the SML-IF text. 18:27:41 Sandy: This is one level below binding in SML-IF 18:28:21 ACTION: Ginny to open bug on sentence before 5.2 18:28:21 Sorry, couldn't find user - Ginny 18:28:38 Sandy has joined #sml 18:28:51 ACTION: Virginia to open bug on sentence before 5.2. Regarding use of word "binding". 18:28:52 Created ACTION-158 - Open bug on sentence before 5.2. Regarding use of word \"binding\". [on Virginia Smith - due 2008-01-29]. 18:29:16 Pratul: no sense of binding in Schematron 18:29:35 Jim has joined #sml 18:30:06 John: It is the syntax of the binding that is implementation-dependent. 18:31:21 Sandy: two inconsistencies around rule-binding. 18:32:11 ...What is binding between: documents (in definition) vs. paterns/elements. 18:33:43 Kumar: Binding is between documents. 18:34:13 Sandy: This definition will not work in the example we were looking at. 18:34:50 TOPIC: (Ginny) Sentence before 5.2 Binding of pattern to instances 18:35:55 Pratul: One action taken out . 18:37:00 Kumar: We should delete statement and say that this binding is outside scope of SML. 18:37:18 TOPIC: (John) 5.2 18:38:22 Ginny: "Conforming Profile" is this defined in Schematron? XSLT is the default, this is not a profile. 18:39:05 Pratul: No it doesn't; in fact, we support full Schematron. 18:39:57 John: No objection to taking out the entire paragraph. 18:40:10 Kirk: There are other mentions of Schematron Profile 18:40:33 ACTION: Virginia to open bug to remove the word "profile." 18:40:33 Created ACTION-159 - Open bug to remove the word \"profile.\" [on Virginia Smith - due 2008-01-29]. 18:40:58 Ginny: Check on "conforming implementation" 18:42:33 Sandy: Replace "conf imple" and other equivalent phrases with a common term. 18:43:12 Ginny: Use "conforming model validators"= model validator conforming to spec. 18:43:39 Sandy: Just use "model validatotrs." 18:45:01 TOPIC: (John) 5.3.1 First sentence What is rationale to prevent in embedding in other elements 18:45:13 Sandy: Answered in bug 4664. 18:45:40 TOPIC: (John) 5.3.2 Consistence issue with 5.3.3 18:46:41 John: 5.3.2 #3 vs. 5.3.3 #3 Does second statement imply an ordering for the unioning. 18:47:36 Sandy: Problem with "set of" in 5.3. Replace "set of" with "sequence of". Rules have to be ordered. 18:50:34 Kumar: Rule property consists of Schematron rule--this is involved by Schematron. 18:50:52 Sandy: We should change the name of the property. 18:51:57 Pratul: We should leave the name of property. We should be explicit about referencing Schematron rule. 18:53:17 Ginny: In 5.3.3. #3 Capture Schematron rules. Then Schematron rule are defined schematron elements. 18:53:56 Pratul: The definition of "rule" is weird. 18:54:16 MSM: We refer to our own rules. 18:54:28 ZULAH has joined #sml 18:54:51 MSM: We want to define rules; concretely we do it using Schematron rules. 18:56:30 MSM: The word is overloaded. 18:57:03 ACTION: Virginia to open bug on the clarification of rule; eliminate the definition. 18:57:03 Created ACTION-160 - Open bug on the clarification of rule; eliminate the definition. [on Virginia Smith - due 2008-01-29]. 18:57:34 s/eliminate/possibly eliminate 19:01:26 MSM: Last sentence in 5.3.3. item 3: We say order of schematron rules, which is what Schematron says. Order of the evaluation of Schematron constraints are not constrained. We should say that. 19:01:56 ...Should say that it is implementation defined. 19:02:48 Ginny: Take out statement that says: "As Schematron defined". 19:03:18 Kumar: Preference to keep it there 19:04:52 ACTION: Ginny to open bug on how we should consider Schematron 19:04:52 Sorry, couldn't find user - Ginny 19:05:44 Sandy: We have not links for rules. Also, if we keep bullet 3, then use schematron prefix for elements. 19:07:00 TOPIC: (John) 5.3.x : 5.3.1 "Let local rules be..." vsl 5.3.2 #1 first sentence 19:07:52 John: Third Section 6 bullet #2. Should these places be consistent? 19:08:17 Sandy: First and Third these need to be consistent. Needs to Global. 19:08:52 ...Second: This is different because it is at the component level. Inheritance. 19:10:23 John: 5.3.2 #1: "global element declarations schema component," 19:12:33 Sandy: This is difference betwen syntax and component. Other places refer to xs:element for syntax. 19:13:38 ACTION: John to open bug to distinguish syntax vs. component use of "GED". 19:13:38 Created ACTION-161 - Open bug to distinguish syntax vs. component use of \"GED\". [on John Arwe - due 2008-01-29]. 19:14:07 MSM: 5.3.1 turns out to be about components. 19:15:33 ...in 6 bullet 2, use XSD syntax, but Sandy has misgivings: 5.3.1 and 6 should be consistent. 19:15:45 Jim has joined #sml 19:17:00 TOPIC: (John) 6 bullet 3: "whenever allowed by schema" 19:17:22 John: Why is this the case? 19:21:33 Discussion of the meaning of this constraint and LocID attribute. 19:23:48 Sandy: LocID is specified on the element that has textual content.. 19:25:11 John: remove the constraint regarding schema. 19:25:43 Sandy: Also remove "containing textual content". 19:25:59 MSM: Could eliminate rule 3 19:26:38 ACTION: Valentina to open bug on clarification of rule 3 and use of LocID. 19:26:38 Created ACTION-162 - Open bug on clarification of rule 3 and use of LocID. [on Valentina Popescu - due 2008-01-29]. 19:27:40 TOPIC: (John) end of 7, last clause, needs "If and only IF" 19:28:15 ACTION: John to open bug to make correction for this item. 19:28:15 Created ACTION-163 - Open bug to make correction for this item. [on John Arwe - due 2008-01-29]. 19:28:56 ...We need discussion as to what this correction applies to. 19:29:56 John: item #5: "X must be true, but in on corner case, behavior is implementation-defined." This seems to be strange. 19:30:36 Sandy: Move bullet 5 to before the final set of numbers. 19:30:49 Sandy_ has joined #sml 19:32:27 MSM: All documents must be available to test validity. "Gray area" regarding normativeness. 19:33:36 Kumar: If not reachable, behavior is implementation-dependent. 19:33:59 MSM: We talk about what is required to determine validity, and then talk about the meaning of validity. 19:34:45 ACTION: John to open bug regarding reorg to handle bullet #5 in section 7. 19:34:46 Created ACTION-164 - Open bug regarding reorg to handle bullet #5 in section 7. [on John Arwe - due 2008-01-29]. 19:40:23 TOPIC: SML-IF section 4 Clarification of purpose of the section. 19:41:12 Ginny: What is "Explicit Reference"? Has sense of group. 19:54:14 TOPIC: (Ginny) SML-IF 5.2.1 at end. Consumer must treat document as not part of interchange set. 19:54:57 Ginny: What behavior is implied here? Actions are specified in 5.3.3. 19:55:36 John: We should refer to the section for clarification. 19:56:30 Jim has joined #sml 19:56:35 TOPIC: SML-IF 5.;3.2 3rd Paragraph. We have a bug on this. 19:57:19 TOPIC: SML-IF 5.2.2 last paragraph. Uses word locate in three places. 19:57:43 John: Read this to mean "retrieve"? 19:58:13 ZULAH has joined #sml 19:59:32 Ginny: We now say, validator my ignore a referenced document. 20:00:08 ... ISSUE: Relationship of this to the discussion of schemaComplete. 20:01:10 MSM: This is a confusion. Sandy/Kumar not a confusion. 20:02:34 Jim2 has joined #sml 20:03:39 ...ISSUE: SHOULD/MUST discussion regarding decision to not locate the document. 20:05:38 MSM: Should be a MUST 20:06:37 Sandy: This should still be a SHOULD, but it really doesn't matter much (Zulah agrees.) 20:08:34 John: Any objections to leaving text as is. 20:09:04 ...No objections, but MSM wishes to regard his concern. 20:12:05 Ginny: issue of Acknowledgement section in SML-IF 20:12:35 MSM: Supports having this kind of section.l 20:13:21 Discussion of current/past members in Acknolwedgement 20:14:02 MSM: At publication time, editors look at IP list. 20:14:21 TOPIC: SML-IF 5.3.1. URI Reference 20:14:47 John: URI vs. URI Reference. 20:15:06 Zulah thinks that the precious issue should have been a MUST but can live with a SHOULD and agrees with Sandy that this doesn't matter much. 20:15:08 TOPIC SML-IF 5.5 Schema bindings 20:15:59 John: Is default Schema is optional? Sandy: Response Yes 20:18:17 John: Rules for default Schema follow rules above, but these rules reference a different parent. Variable SB must be bound to default Schema. 20:19:06 John: Why say consumer MUST generate default schema? 20:19:16 Ginny: Consumers may choose to ignore. 20:20:09 Sandy: MUST be used => "is used" 20:21:38 John: Use "the processing of default schema is as follows:" 20:21:50 TOPIC: Question for Group. 20:22:06 MSM's proposal for the defaultSchema paragraph: 20:22:09 Change 20:22:12 If defaultSchema is present, then an SML-IF consumer MUST compose a 20:22:12 default schema from this element following rules 1 to 3 20:22:12 above. Otherwise, an SML-IF consumers MUST compose a default schema 20:22:12 using *all* schema documents included in the SML-IF document. An 20:22:13 SML-IF consumer MUST use this default schema to validate those SML 20:22:13 instance documents that are not included in any schemaBinding. 20:22:15 to 20:22:17 If defaultSchema is present, then the default schema used for SML-IF 20:22:19 model validation is composed from this element following rules 1 to 3 20:22:21 above, with the defaultSchema element as the value of SB. Otherwise, 20:22:23 the default schema is composed using *all* schema documents included 20:22:25 in the SML-IF document. When performing SML-IF model validation, an 20:22:27 SML-IF consumer MUST use this default schema to validate those SML 20:22:29 instance documents that are not included in any schemaBinding. 20:22:46 John: Assuming that we get substantive issues today, are people confortable with going to LC? 20:23:51 Pratul: There is no known substantive issue. 20:25:00 John: Discusses flow of going to LC. (See Process Document) 20:29:17 MSM: Encourages us to content WG chairs for related WGs to get schedule of their review. This is just the Schema WG. 20:31:59 MSM: Regarding getting back to commentators: We must place resolution in the bug to ask for agreement/disagreement with originator. We need boiler-place text. 20:34:34 John: Once we go to LC, we must think about audit trail. 20:35:01 MSM: Candidate Rec is a Call for implementations. 20:38:25 MSM: Identifying Features at Risk: alert ot reviewers to consider what spec would be like without this feature. 20:40:31 rssagent, generate minutes 20:41:28 rrsagent, generate minutes 20:41:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-sml-minutes.html Kirk 20:41:43 rrsagent, make log public 21:49:19 ZULAH has joined #sml