See also: IRC log
<MSM> XSLT test summary: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/xslt20-test/Documentation/reportSummary.html
<MSM> XSLT test cases detail: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/xslt20-test/Documentation/reportTestCases.html
<MSM> XQuery implementation report: http://www.w3.org/XML/Query/test-suite/XQTSReport.html
<Kirk> Let me know when the phone line is available. Thanks.
<Kumar> scribe: Kumar Pandit
<Kumar> scribenick: Kumar
<johnarwe_> we are having some "issues" w the phone. it's some fancy thing no one can figure out how to work yet. complete w/ "driver"s
<Kirk> Obviously, a Microsoft driver is needed!!
<Kirk> Have you figured out the phone yet??
<johnarwe_> no
<johnarwe_> we're now talking about switching rooms, trying to find a POTS to plug in
<Kirk> What happened to standard interfaces -- for telephones??
<Kirk> Well, let me know if you can a phone line open. I'll stay connected to IRC.
<johnarwe_> we are moving to another room now
<Kirk> I have another call that I must attend at 4:30 ET. So I'm good for the whole morning session.
<Kirk> With a comprehensible telephone, I presume.
<johnarwe_> we just called in
<Kirk> Ok, I'll call in.
kirk: I will walk you through the doc.
<johnarwe_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Oct/0016.html
kirk: ...explains the need to
have epr based SML ref scheme.
... section 2 defines a framework for defining EPR based SML
ref schemes.
... ...discusses how section 2 provides a way to convert the
non-normative note into a normative one if desired.
... ... describes a sample EPR based scheme defined in section
3.1
... ...describes how refs that use EPR based ref schemes can be
used in SML-IF for interchange.
<johnarwe_> after we finish with the EPR Note review, and pick up the transition request again, the drafts reflecting yesterday's wg mtg updates are at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Oct/0020.html
msm: publishing first public
draft of a note is relatively easy. the general understanding
is that the WG is done with the content of the note and is not
expected to work on it more.
... publishing as a working draft ==> the WG will work on it
further.
... publishing as a note ==> WG does not expect further work
on it.
kirk: I propose that we publish the EPR note as a W3C note.
resolution: The WG agrees that the EPR note will be published as a note.
<MSM> Kirk?
<MSM> [meeting starts up again]
<johnarwe_> Kirk, we are moving back upstairs now so the vultures do not steal our midday sup once it arrives.
<Kirk> Let me know if I can call back in. (You'll have to re-invite Zakim.)
<johnarwe_> Kirk, we are dialed in again in the new room
<Kirk> Ok--will dial in.
<johnarwe_> A conforming [model processor] MUST process a conforming SML model using, in whole or part, semantics defined by this specification. It is OPTIONAL that a conforming model processor process all elements defined in this specification, but any element that is processed MUST be processed according to the requirements stated in the normative sections of this specification. In particular, if a conforming model processor performs model validation, then that proc
<johnarwe_> In particular, if a conforming model processor performs model validation, then that process MUST be performed as described in this specification.
<johnarwe_> further, ginny suggests omitting that last sentence
<johnarwe_> MSM: we have established that both specs have must/may/should statements which target model processors in general
<johnarwe_> (Kumar lost IRC connection so his typing was not showing up)
<MSM> A conforming SML [or: SML-IF] processor is one which satisfies all the
<MSM> constraints imposed on processors elsewhere in this specification.
<MSM> Optionally, add: All SML[-IF] validators are SML[-IF] processors, but
<MSM> not all processors are validators.
<pratul> RESOLUTION: Add the first two lines proposed by MSM to the SML Conformance Section
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: discussion on how we treat model processors.
john: we define model processors
in the spec and there are a few normative statements about
model processors in the sml spec.
... The definition of model processors is so broad that we
cannot have any meaningful set of tests to test
interoperability of model processors.
msm: we have some statements in SML spec that use MAY or MUST regarding model processors therefore we should add an entry in the "Conformance" section for model processors.
<Kirk_> I think I'm going to quit. "Talk" tomorrow. Again, thanks for the input on the EPR Note.
<ginny> scribe: Ginny
<scribe> scribenick: ginny
<Liam> [xquery at lunch]
ginny: Isn't multiple schemes in an SML reference more of an extension point rather than optional feature?
MSM: propose that we label this feature as EXT not SML
Kumar: we should add additional
info about our categories of optional features, e.g.
testability of extension points.
... need test case for non-Schema determined IDs
... we can't test whether an implementation does consistency
checking on multiple base uri methods
MSM: if inconsistency is known, the model is invalid
Is there a requirement to report this?
MSM: 'xml:base wins' means we
prescribe what interpretation is to be placed on the
model
... you recover from this error (inconsistency) this is how you
recover.
<Liam> MSM, there is still a lunch here for you
[test case] a test case for consistency checking assuming that we have an implementation that does consistency checking.
s/Kumar: need test case/[test case] Kumar: need test case/
No candidates for "at risk" identified in SML
No candidates for "at risk" identified in SML-IF
the working group will define a list of features and verify implementation of these features in the 2 implementations we have
Discussion of granularity of features
spec table of contents is the starting point
List is being captured in the SML transition request doc.
Initial feature list identified; now working on matching Cosmos tests with features.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Need/[test case]/ FAILED: s/Kumar: need test case/[test case] Kumar: need test case/ Found Scribe: Kumar Pandit Found ScribeNick: Kumar Found Scribe: Ginny Inferring ScribeNick: ginny Found ScribeNick: ginny Scribes: Kumar Pandit, Ginny ScribeNicks: Kumar, ginny WARNING: Replacing list of attendees. Old list: [Microsoft] Kirk New list: [Microsoft] WARNING: Replacing list of attendees. Old list: [Microsoft] New list: johnarwe_ Kumark Ginny Sandy Len MSM Kirk Default Present: johnarwe_, Kumark, Ginny, Sandy, Len, MSM, Kirk Present: johnarwe_ Kumark Ginny Sandy Len MSM Kirk Got date from IRC log name: 28 Oct 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/10/28-sml-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]