18:56:05 RRSAgent has joined #sml 18:56:05 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/11/08-sml-irc 18:56:14 Zakim has joined #sml 18:57:25 Meeting: W3C SML Teleconference of 2007-11-08 18:57:31 pratul has joined #sml 18:58:16 Agenda is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Nov/0081.html 18:59:20 XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has now started 18:59:26 +[Microsoft] 18:59:29 +Ginny 18:59:39 Zakim, Microsoft is me 18:59:39 +pratul; got it 19:00:55 +Sandy 19:07:09 zakim, who is here? 19:07:09 On the phone I see pratul, Ginny, Sandy 19:07:10 On IRC I see pratul, Zakim, RRSAgent, J, ginny, Sandy, MSM, trackbot-ng 19:08:01 Regrets: Kirk, Valentina 19:08:17 +[Microsoft] 19:08:56 Kumar has joined #sml 19:09:20 Regrets: Kirk, Valentina, John 19:09:38 zakim, Microsoft is Kumar 19:09:38 +Kumar; got it 19:10:59 Regrets: Michael 19:12:51 scribe: Ginny 19:16:53 Topic: schedule Monday meeting with w3c 19:17:10 Resolution: Pratul will send email request 19:18:32 Topic: Approval of minutes 10/15 and 11/1 19:18:40 Resolution: approved by attending members 19:19:29 Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5040 19:19:37 +Jim 19:21:12 Note: no quorum present; decision is to discuss issues today and bring issues up to rest of group when a quorum present 19:27:35 Kumar: wants to have confidence that a valid model is really valid. 19:28:03 Sandy: we have only 2 states - valid and invalid 19:28:35 Sandy: if we separate concerns we can cover all use cases 19:29:04 ... targetRequired controls whether a ref resolves not targetType 19:38:57 Kumar: make this dependent on the whether we decide on an "unknown" state 19:39:33 Sandy: model validator could state that it cannot perform e.g. network down. 19:40:03 ... this affect more than just this bug 19:40:18 s/affect/affects/ 19:41:09 Kumar: if validator cannot reach the target and the target is actually not the correct type; use will not know 19:41:18 s/use/user/ 19:42:00 Sandy: memory bad or no network is not an issue on this bug only; this is an issue for the validator as a whole 19:43:17 Kumar: if this kind of an error we cannot say if the model if valid or not. 19:44:13 ... then this "unknown" does not apply to a reference but to the model as a whole 19:45:39 Kumar: rephrasing: When you are trying to resolve a scheme and it cannot be resolved due to an error such as network, etc., the entire model is declared to be unknown. 19:46:11 ... then ok with targetType/Element in this bug be specified as "satisfied" 19:49:57 Resolution: When you are trying to resolve a scheme and it cannot be resolved due to an error such as network, etc., the entire model is declared to be unknown. Then for an unresolved reference, targetType/Element is declared "satisfied". 19:50:23 s/unknown/in an unknown state/ 19:54:26 Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5063 19:55:55 Sandy: no inheritance for particle restrictions so argument is not the same as Bug 4643 19:56:26 ... need to specify how inheritance happens 19:57:50 Pratul: original spec wanted constraints to be inherited 19:59:00 ... why do we need to look at schema 1.1? 20:01:22 Sandy: describes the inheritance problem... 20:05:21 Action: Sandy to add an example of the problem to the bug 20:05:21 Created ACTION-149 - Add an example of the problem to the bug [on Sandy Gao - due 2007-11-15]. 20:06:24 Sandy: preference is that we don't inherit 20:07:56 Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5119 20:09:40 Resolution: mark as editorial; editors to ensure that all issues in this bug have been addressed. 20:13:14 Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5120 20:13:15 Sandy: working on a proposal covering inter-document references that will cover this bug as well as others 20:13:49 Resolution: Review this bug after reviewing Sandy's proposal. 20:15:18 Marking this bug as needsAgreement. 20:17:01 Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5171 and http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5201 20:17:03 Resolution: mark as needsAgreement and wait for Sandy's proposal 20:18:02 Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5181 20:26:13 Kumar: proposes to replace schemaLocation uri's with alias to document 20:27:14 Sandy: but base uri also applies to sml:uri elements and possible other new schemes. 20:28:08 Kumar: if xml:base brings other semantics with it, one possibility is to back to baseURI 20:29:09 Sandy: having a single baseURI is not sufficient; several documents may need different baseURIs 20:30:27 Sandy: candidates that need a base include schemaLocations and sml:uri but should also cover additional extensions like new schemes 20:31:06 Sandy: normally expect that relative URI is resolved based on containing document 20:32:03 ... so alias must retain information on directory structure that is lost when packaged into an SML-IF document 20:33:25 ... each document has its own baseURI 20:38:42 Kumar: sml-if doc baseURI applies to every embedded document? 20:40:53 Kumar: each document has its own baseURI, a schemaLocation, and sml reference. SchemaLocation is written with baseURI in mind but sml:uri may not be. 20:41:35 Sandy: can always add other aliases 20:42:22 Kumar: are aliases absolute? 20:42:24 Sandy: yes, they need to be 20:42:52 Pratul: every relative URI is based on baseURI 20:43:50 Kumar: uncomfortable with each document having its own baseURI 20:44:17 ... if 10 incoming references and each with its own baseURI, will need 10 aliases for the document. 20:45:19 Sandy: don't need different URIs 20:46:10 A: file://dir/a.xml B: file://dir/b.xml in A, there is a reference "../b.xml#xyz". 20:47:26 Kumar: 2 docs with different baseURIs. A has ref to E in B. A's ref is relative to A. To reach B, take baseURI of A plus relative ref to reach document B. So B will need an alias to match. 20:47:58 B: file://dir2/b.xml 20:48:08 reference: "../dir2/b.xml#xyz" 20:51:42 Sandy: in most cases, baseURI and alias will be the same 20:53:56 Pratul: could go back to one baseURI or change all uris to be absolute 20:54:52 Chair: Pratul 20:54:54 -pratul 20:57:47 jLynn has joined #sml 21:01:29 Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4811 21:02:10 Ginny: suggest that we limit a "conforming validator" to the #ALL phase; this does not mean a validator does not support other phases. 21:06:54 Resolution: Ginny will add another bullet point to address Sandy's concern about the #ALL phase 21:08:32 -Sandy 21:08:52 zakim, generate minutes 21:08:52 I don't understand 'generate minutes', ginny 21:09:09 -Kumar 21:09:11 rrsagent, draft minutes 21:09:11 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/08-sml-minutes.html ginny 21:09:17 -Ginny 21:09:38 rrsagent, make minutes public 21:09:38 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', ginny. Try /msg RRSAgent help 21:09:44 -Jim 21:09:45 XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended 21:09:47 Attendees were Ginny, pratul, Sandy, Kumar, Jim 21:10:34 zakim, bye 21:10:34 Zakim has left #sml 21:11:12 rrsagent, bye 21:12:02 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/08-sml-minutes.html Sandy 21:12:10 I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/08-sml-actions.rdf : 21:12:10 ACTION: Sandy to add an example of the problem to the bug [1] 21:12:10 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/08-sml-irc#T20-05-21