18:55:48 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sml
18:55:48 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/02/14-sml-irc
18:57:30 <johnarwe> johnarwe has joined #sml
18:59:22 <Zakim> MSM, you asked to be reminded at this time to call in
19:00:11 <Valentina> Valentina has joined #sml
19:00:22 <Jim> Jim has joined #sml
19:00:38 <MSM> zakim, please call MSM-617
19:00:38 <Zakim> ok, MSM; the call is being made
19:00:39 <Zakim> XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has now started
19:00:40 <Zakim> +MSM
19:00:48 <Zakim> +johnarwe
19:00:49 <MSM> MSM has changed the topic to: SML WG call, agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Feb/0114.html
19:01:05 <Zakim> +Valentina
19:01:14 <Zakim> +Jim
19:02:06 <Zakim> +??P10
19:02:24 <ginny> ginny has joined #sml
19:02:34 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
19:02:45 <Zakim> +??P12
19:02:46 <pratul> Zakim, Microsoft is me
19:02:47 <Zakim> +pratul; got it
19:03:06 <ginny> zakim, ??P12 is me
19:03:06 <Zakim> +ginny; got it
19:03:29 <Zakim> +Kumar
19:04:13 <Sandy> Sandy has joined #sml
19:05:38 <Valentina> scribenick: Valentina
19:05:54 <Valentina> chair: John
19:06:10 <Valentina> Meeting: SML teleconference
19:09:16 <johnarwe> zakim, who's here?
19:09:16 <Zakim> On the phone I see MSM, johnarwe, Valentina, Jim, ??P10, pratul, ginny, Kumar
19:09:18 <Zakim> On IRC I see Sandy, ginny, Jim, Valentina, johnarwe, RRSAgent, pratul, Zakim, MSM, trackbot-ng
19:09:42 <Jordan> Jordan has joined #sml
19:09:45 <Sandy> zakim, ? is me.
19:09:45 <Zakim> +Sandy; got it
19:09:53 <Kumar> Kumar has joined #sml
19:09:59 <Valentina> Topic: Approval of minutes from previous meeting(s)
19:10:08 <Valentina> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Feb/att-0086/SML_Teleconference_--_07_Feb_2008.htm   
19:10:25 <Zakim> +jboucher
19:10:49 <Valentina> Ginny: a discussion about the SML-IF consumer, required a bug to be opened by Ginny; Ginny is not planning to submit a bug 
19:11:15 <Valentina> Kumar: not confortable with the current text but can accept the current content
19:11:43 <MSM> Ginny, is this in connection with 4675?
19:12:16 <Valentina> Ginny: all the notes dicussion is not in the meeting minutes;the notes were private
19:13:10 <Valentina> John : Kumar will take a look at the minutes and minutes will be updated next week
19:13:20 <MSM> So for purposes of today's minutes, the key points are (a) that Ginny doesn't currently plan to open a bug after all, and (b) Kumar is reluctantly willing to let it go
19:13:41 <Valentina> s/updated/approved
19:14:27 <Valentina> Topic: news from the CG
19:15:19 <Valentina> John: plan to point them to the editor's copy as soon as 5181 is finalized
19:15:34 <Valentina> Topic: Action items
19:16:42 <Valentina> John: proposal for 5417 is overdue
19:17:53 <Valentina> Kumar: On action 9, a discussion had taken place with the right group. It seems that there is no best practices available yet.
19:18:09 <Valentina> Kumar: proposes to close this action until a best practices is defined
19:18:17 <Valentina> Resolution: Kumar will close this action
19:19:04 <Valentina> John: Kirk has one action overdue; Kirk not here today
19:19:20 <Valentina> Topic: Review bugs with no keywords or target
19:19:58 <Valentina> Topic:  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5390
19:20:08 <Valentina> John: proposes to target this for CR
19:20:20 <Valentina> Resolution: target bug to CR
19:20:43 <Valentina> Topic:  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5478
19:20:57 <Valentina> John: propose to mark editorial, and target for LC
19:21:38 <Valentina> Resolution: mark editorial, target to LC
19:22:21 <Valentina>  Topic:  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5423
19:22:39 <Zakim> +Zulah_Eckert
19:23:35 <zulah> zulah has joined #sml
19:24:04 <Valentina> Ginny: commenting on John's description in comment #7
19:24:42 <Valentina> Ginny: proposes to reduces the amount of text in this definitions; they are repeated in other sections
19:24:53 <Valentina> s/reduces/reduce
19:25:06 <Valentina> s/this/these
19:25:59 <zeckert> zeckert has joined #sml
19:26:21 <Valentina> John: remove the second sentence in all three definitions and leave the rest ( looking at comment #7 in bugzilla )
19:27:07 <Valentina> Resoultion : remove the second sentence in all three definitions and leave the rest ( looking at comment #7 in bugzilla )
19:29:10 <Valentina> Topic:  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5398
19:30:30 <Valentina> Ginny: has a problem with vacuous document
19:30:45 <Valentina> Ginny: need a definition of this term
19:32:14 <Valentina> Kumar: used this term because MSM mentioned that XML Schema is using the same term
19:32:41 <Valentina> MSM: does not remember about this term in XML Schema
19:33:32 <Valentina> Kumar: Ginny is fine with the notion but not the used word; proposes to have Ginny come up with a better term
19:34:12 <Valentina> Ginny: agrees to proposes a new term
19:34:32 <Valentina> s/proposes/propose
19:35:47 <Valentina> Resolutionmy phone seesm to be on mute..
19:36:27 <Valentina> I can hear you but can't tak..
19:36:36 <Valentina> yes 
19:36:46 <Valentina> I'll call back
19:36:48 <Zakim> -Valentina
19:37:31 <Zakim> +Valentina
19:37:35 <ginny> Action: Virginia to open bug to decide on a term for 'vacuous'
19:37:35 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-170 - Open bug to decide on a term for 'vacuous' [on Virginia Smith - due 2008-02-21].
19:38:47 <Valentina> Tpic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5398
19:39:09 <Valentina> Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5398
19:39:29 <Valentina> Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5306
19:40:04 <Valentina> Resolution: closed as resolved
19:40:25 <Valentina>  Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5418
19:41:14 <MSM> [Not something that needs to delay resolution of the bug, but a possible editorial change:  for the existing text, read:
19:41:15 <MSM> An SML-IF producer MAY declare that a model conforms to a specific
19:41:15 <MSM> version of the SML-IF specification by including the version number of
19:41:16 <MSM> the relevant specification as the value of the SMLIFVersion attribute
19:41:16 <MSM> in the document's model element.
19:41:17 <MSM> ]
19:42:36 <johnarwe> preceding is a re-word of 1st sentence, relevant to 5306
19:42:50 <Valentina> MSM: suggests an editorial update, see comments above
19:43:18 <Valentina> Resolution: resolved, with a possible update as suggested by MSM
19:43:51 <Valentina> rrsagent, draft minutes
19:43:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/02/14-sml-minutes.html Valentina
19:44:07 <johnarwe> 06MSM can live with that, won't open new bug01
19:44:11 <Valentina> rrsagent, make log public
19:45:53 <Valentina> Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5063
19:49:26 <Valentina> Kumar: agrees with Sandy's comments covered under comment #17 
19:51:07 <Valentina> Resolution: make the changes proposed in comment #17 and close the defect as resolved ( mark editorial )
19:51:25 <Valentina> Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5064
19:51:49 <Valentina> Kumar: addressed by the proposal in 5063, comment #17
19:52:19 <Valentina> Resolution: will be closed when 5063 is resolved
19:53:03 <Valentina> Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5402
19:56:54 <Valentina> Resolution: close as resolved
19:57:16 <Valentina> Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5408
19:59:40 <Valentina> MSM: suggests to link this defect with 5462
20:00:22 <Valentina> Resolution: close as resolved
20:00:34 <Valentina> Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5416
20:01:45 <Valentina> Resolution: close as resolved
20:01:53 <Valentina> Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5424
20:04:36 <Valentina> Ginny: the note sections should be changed to align with the standard format for notes
20:05:25 <Valentina> MSM: proposes to remove 'This note is non-normative' from all notes and make a note at the beginning about  all notes being non-normative
20:05:53 <MSM> [The rule about notes being non-normative is in fact already present in 2.1: "The content of this specification is normative except for sections, notes, or texts that are explicitly marked as non-normative."]
20:06:33 <Valentina> Kumar: can fix 6a and 6b from comment #3; proposes to mark the bug editorial
20:07:33 <Valentina> Resolution: mark editorial and fix according to comment #3
20:07:46 <Valentina>  Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5462
20:11:35 <Valentina> John: leave more time for the group to review comments #5 and #6; mark bug editorial
20:12:54 <Valentina> Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5448
20:13:57 <Valentina> Resolution: close as resolved
20:14:09 <Valentina> Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5450
20:14:39 <Valentina> John: no reason for keeping this defect opened
20:15:09 <Valentina> Resolution: close as resolved
20:15:29 <Valentina> Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5457
20:15:59 <Valentina> Resolution: close as resolved
20:16:09 <Valentina> Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5410
20:16:46 <Valentina> rrsagent, generate minutes
20:16:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/02/14-sml-minutes.html Valentina
20:16:48 <Valentina> Resolution: close as resolved
20:17:00 <Valentina> Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5417
20:19:27 <Valentina> Kumar: wonder if the defect requires to clarify an existing notion or expects to change the meaning 
20:20:19 <Valentina> Kumar: if this requires chages in the meaning of the rules, this change may affect the LC date
20:21:23 <Valentina> MSM: not sure if this is going to fall in the first or second bucket
20:23:58 <Valentina> Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5429
20:24:49 <Valentina> Resolution: close as resolved
20:25:51 <Valentina> Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5395
20:26:15 <Valentina> Resolution: close as resolved
20:26:41 <Valentina> Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5400
20:28:11 <Valentina> Resolution: close as resolved
20:28:22 <Valentina> Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5430
20:28:55 <Valentina> shoud be closed :)
20:28:59 <Valentina> Resolution: close as resolved
20:29:21 <Valentina> Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5437
20:29:57 <Valentina> yes
20:30:15 <Valentina> Resolution: close as resolved
20:30:31 <Valentina> Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5463
20:30:56 <Valentina> Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5181
20:31:58 <Valentina> Ginny: still reading through this section
20:32:12 <Valentina> Ginny: the non-normative sections is a bit confusing
20:32:22 <Valentina> s/sections/section
20:33:07 <Valentina> Ginny: will have this done by tomorrow
20:33:47 <Valentina> Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5479
20:41:53 <Valentina> Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5463
20:46:16 <johnarwe> A set of XML documents is a conforming SML model  if and only if it satisfies the following conditions: 
20:46:16 <johnarwe>  
20:46:16 <johnarwe>    1. 
20:46:16 <johnarwe>  
20:46:16 <johnarwe>       Each document in the model MUST be a well-formed XML document [XML] 
20:46:17 <johnarwe>    2. 
20:46:20 <johnarwe>  
20:46:21 <johnarwe>       Each XML Schema document in the model's definition documents MUST satisfy the conditions expressed in Errors in Schema Construction and Structure (§5.1). [XML Schema Structures] 
20:46:24 <johnarwe>    3. 
20:46:26 <johnarwe>  
20:46:28 <johnarwe>       Each Schematron document in the model's definition documents MUST be a valid Schematron document [ISO/IEC 19757-3]
20:50:54 <Valentina> MSM: is the requirement mentioned in this defect feasible ?
20:53:17 <Valentina> Kumar: the requirement is not that the references be valid but to be defined using the SML reference scheme
20:53:56 <Valentina> s/SML reference scheme/SML URI reference scheme
20:54:43 <Valentina> MSM: Kumar's comment addresses his concern
20:56:57 <MSM> [But I notice a new concern:  what we intend is that the SML-IF  producer's output be 'equivalent' to the input SML model, for some suitable definition of equivalence.]
20:58:22 <MSM> [But the current prose does not define equivalence.  I think I'm hearing Kumar say a suitable definition of equivalence is not possible.]
20:59:27 <MSM> If an SML-IF producer translates every SML model as input into <sml:if/> (or whatever the smallest SML-IF model is), is it
20:59:33 <MSM> (a) conforming but not very useful, or
20:59:36 <MSM> (b) non-conforming?
21:00:18 <Valentina> rrsagent, generate minutes
21:00:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/02/14-sml-minutes.html Valentina
21:04:13 <Zakim> -jboucher
21:04:17 <Jordan> hard stop, bfn
21:04:32 <Zakim> -Zulah_Eckert
21:05:14 <Zakim> -pratul
21:08:11 <Valentina> Resolution: fix the bug as in comment #1 and add a non-normative section stating that the expectation is that the in put and output model are equivalent; the notion of equivalence will not be defined
21:08:23 <Zakim> -Valentina
21:08:32 <Zakim> -MSM
21:08:36 <Zakim> -Sandy
21:08:38 <Jim> Jim has left #sml
21:08:44 <Zakim> -ginny
21:08:45 <Zakim> -Jim
21:08:46 <Zakim> -Kumar
21:08:46 <Zakim> XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended
21:08:48 <Zakim> Attendees were MSM, johnarwe, Valentina, Jim, pratul, ginny, Kumar, Sandy, jboucher, Zulah_Eckert
21:09:18 <johnarwe> johnarwe has left #sml
21:09:30 <Valentina> rrsagent, generate minutes
21:09:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/02/14-sml-minutes.html Valentina
22:42:51 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sml