IRC log of sml on 2008-01-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:01:41 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sml
19:01:41 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/01/03-sml-irc
19:02:01 [MSM]
zakim, please cal MSM-Office
19:02:01 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'please cal MSM-Office', MSM
19:02:14 [MSM]
zakim, please call MSM-Office
19:02:14 [Zakim]
sorry, MSM, I don't know what conference this is
19:02:19 [MSM]
zakim, this is SML
19:02:19 [Zakim]
ok, MSM; that matches XML_SMLWG()2:00PM
19:02:22 [MSM]
zakim, please call MSM-Office
19:02:22 [Zakim]
ok, MSM; the call is being made
19:02:24 [Zakim]
+MSM
19:02:26 [MSM]
zakim,who's here?
19:02:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see johnarwe, Kirk, [Microsoft], ginny, MSM (muted)
19:02:27 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, pratul, ginny, johnarwe, Kirk, MSM, trackbot-ng
19:02:46 [pratul]
Zakim, Microsoft is me
19:02:46 [Zakim]
+pratul; got it
19:04:48 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
19:05:02 [Jordan]
Jordan has joined #sml
19:05:34 [Zakim]
+Jordan
19:06:34 [Kumar]
Kumar has joined #sml
19:06:57 [MSM]
MSM has changed the topic to: SML call, agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Jan/0001.html
19:06:59 [Kumar]
chair: john
19:07:06 [Kumar]
scribe: kumar
19:08:07 [Kumar]
topic: approval of minutes
19:10:43 [Kumar]
john: does anyone have any objection to the minutes?
19:13:36 [Kumar]
kumar: Kumar's explanation that addressed msm's concerns about 5063 is not in the minutes.
19:13:46 [johnarwe]
12/13 minutes
19:13:58 [Kumar]
john: kumar, can you send the missing text to Kirk so that he can update the minutes accordingly.
19:14:09 [Kumar]
kirk: yes
19:14:26 [johnarwe]
kirk will re-issue 12/13 minutes
19:14:42 [Kirk]
Kirk: Notes of 12-06 seem to imply that Bugzilla issue when be entered after text of the EPR Note is available
19:15:16 [Kirk]
...resolution: Kirk to enter Bugzilla issue for the EPR Note
19:16:03 [Kirk]
ACTION: Kirk to open Bugzilla issue for the EPR Note
19:16:03 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-155 - Open Bugzilla issue for the EPR Note [on Kirk Wilson - due 2008-01-10].
19:16:12 [Kumar]
resolution: minutes from 12/3, 12/6 & 12/10 are approved.
19:16:53 [Kirk]
ACTION: Kirk will reissue notes of the 13th with clarification of Pratul's comment on issue 5063 and explanation of proposal from Kumar.
19:16:53 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-156 - Will reissue notes of the 13th with clarification of Pratul's comment on issue 5063 and explanation of proposal from Kumar. [on Kirk Wilson - due 2008-01-10].
19:17:02 [Kumar]
topic: meeting schedule
19:17:19 [Kumar]
john: please register for Jan f2f
19:18:20 [Kumar]
john: monday meeting to be discontinued effective 1/3/2008. they may be restarted if we feel the need.
19:19:16 [Kumar]
topic: review action items
19:23:40 [Kumar]
john: msm, you were going to create a component in bugzilla for the EPR note.
19:24:02 [Kumar]
msm: was confused. thought it was 'comment' not 'component'.
19:24:21 [Kumar]
msm: will create a component today.
19:25:27 [Kumar]
topic: Review bugs with no keywords or target
19:25:33 [Kumar]
no such bugs
19:25:42 [Kumar]
topic: Review and attempt to reach consensus on other non-editorial "hasProposal" bugs.
19:27:04 [MSM]
[OK, component "EPR Refernece Scheme" has now been created. Kirk, I have made you the default Assignee for issues against that component.]
19:28:34 [Kumar]
topic: bug# 5303
19:29:25 [Kumar]
john: any objection to marking 5303 as fixed?
19:29:45 [Kumar]
john: no objection heard. please mark it has closed.
19:30:27 [johnarwe]
4992
19:31:41 [Kumar]
topic: bug# 4992
19:33:07 [Kumar]
john: Sandy may see a problem with the current text.
19:33:28 [Kumar]
ginny: let us postpone reviewing this till Sandy has had a chance to look at it.
19:35:18 [Kumar]
msm: we should let the infoset spec contact about this problem.
19:36:21 [Kumar]
msm: the problem: we want to formulate a rule in our spec about target equality. we want to be able to compare two elements for equality. As sandy points out in his comment, there is nothing in the infoset to allow this.
19:37:24 [Kumar]
msm: it will help us if the infoset allowed us to make this distinction.
19:37:56 [MSM]
s/let the infoset spec contact/perhaps contact the WG responsible for the infoset spec/
19:40:08 [Kumar]
kirk: we seemm to require "An assertion that states whether or not the scheme uses target-complete URIs.", however the URI scheme does not define this.
19:40:48 [Kumar]
ginny: I will fix this.
19:41:24 [Kumar]
topic: bug# 5063/5064
19:42:46 [Kumar]
msm: it will be easier to review this if we have a revision to comment# 6 to include Sandy's suggestions in comment# 7
19:50:38 [Kumar]
msm: acyclic is associated with a type definition. in earlier spec, a ref was a ref only if it was derived from refType.
19:52:30 [Kumar]
msm: currently being a ref is no longer associated with being derived from any specific type.
19:54:23 [Kumar]
kumar: acyclic is associated with a type and not an element because we want to prevent cycles being formed by refs of type T or any type derived from T.
20:09:33 [Kumar]
msm: believes that specifying target* constraint on elements and the corresponding property being attached to the containing complext type def may be confusing.
20:10:06 [Kumar]
kumar: I will work with msm to get his input into clarifying this. This will help avoid the confusion.
20:13:28 [Kumar]
kirk: 7.a refered to the proposal (in comment# 6) should really be 6.a
20:13:33 [Kumar]
kumar: i agree.
20:19:39 [Kumar]
msm: we have a contradiction. acyclic applies to a type but target* apply to elements.
20:20:09 [Kumar]
pratul: there were scenarios that required acyclic to be defined on type which prompted this design decision.
20:35:47 [Kumar]
kumar: msm are you proposing that all sml constraints be attached to types (rather than some to types and some to elements)?
20:36:18 [Kumar]
msm: I am not proposing anything at this point. I will work on some examples.
20:41:39 [Kumar]
kumar: msm raised one issue that specifying target* constraints on elements but attaching the corresponding property to containing type can be confusing. I will work on this with msm and with anyone else who is interested. Is there any other issue that others would like to raise?
20:43:30 [Kumar]
kumar: does anyone know what zulah's objections were?
20:43:46 [Kumar]
john: I believe she thought this should be handled by the xml schema processor.
20:44:40 [Kumar]
kumar: I had discussed this with her in private email and pointed out that the xml schema processor does not understand any SML constraint, therefore it will not help us.
20:47:07 [Kumar]
topic: bug# 4675
20:47:31 [Kumar]
john: did anyone read Sandy's proposal? any comments?
20:51:40 [Kumar]
john: we should publish working draft if possible.
20:51:42 [Kumar]
msm: I agree.
20:57:02 [Kumar]
kumar: the editors will create such a draft.
20:57:06 [Kumar]
ginny: yes, i agree.
20:59:43 [Zakim]
-Kirk
21:00:16 [Kirk]
I lost my phone connection, but I'm OK with the proposal
21:01:02 [Kumar]
john: proposal: publish the current editors' draft as a public draft by next Thu?
21:01:36 [Kumar]
john: no objection heard.
21:01:51 [Zakim]
-pratul
21:01:56 [Zakim]
-[Microsoft]
21:01:57 [Zakim]
-ginny
21:01:58 [Zakim]
-johnarwe
21:01:59 [Zakim]
-Jordan
21:02:08 [Zakim]
-MSM
21:02:09 [Zakim]
XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended
21:02:11 [Zakim]
Attendees were johnarwe, Kirk, ginny, MSM, pratul, [Microsoft], Jordan
21:05:48 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sml
21:06:57 [johnarwe]
rrsagent, generate minutes
21:06:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/03-sml-minutes.html johnarwe
21:07:10 [johnarwe]
rrsagent, make log public
21:08:25 [johnarwe]
johnarwe has left #sml