17:56:38 RRSAgent has joined #sml 17:56:38 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-sml-irc 17:56:55 rrsagent, make log public 17:57:19 meeting: W3C SML Teleconference of 2008-03-13 17:57:30 scribenick: Sandy 17:57:34 scribe: Sandy Gao 17:57:38 pratul has joined #sml 17:58:02 Agenda at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Mar/0050.html 17:58:25 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Mar/0050.html 17:58:46 chair: Pratul Dublish 17:58:46 +[Microsoft] 17:59:04 Zakim, Microsoft is me 17:59:04 +pratul; got it 17:59:23 Kirk has joined #sml 18:00:22 +Kirk 18:00:42 +Sandy 18:01:37 regrets: Zulah Eckert 18:01:56 regrets+ James Lynn 18:02:07 ginny has joined #sml 18:02:59 regrets+ John Arwe, Jordan Boucher, MSM 18:03:09 rrsagent, generate minutes 18:03:09 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-sml-minutes.html Sandy 18:03:56 s/Zulah Eckert/Zulah_Eckert 18:04:03 s/James Lynn/James_Lynn 18:04:06 + +1.530.823.aaaa 18:04:11 rrsagent, generate minutes 18:04:11 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-sml-minutes.html Sandy 18:04:19 zakim, aaaa is me 18:04:19 +ginny; got it 18:11:18 +[Microsoft] 18:11:47 topic: Approval of minutes from previous meeting 18:12:02 2008-03-06 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Mar/att-0048/20080306-sml-minutes.html 18:12:24 RESOLUTION: the 2008-03-06 minutes at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Mar/att-0048/20080306-sml-minutes.html is approved. 18:12:52 topic: 5523 Discuss the behavior of GET on URI 18:14:44 Kumar has a proposal in comment #2. 18:14:59 No questions or concerns from WG members present. 18:15:08 Kumar has joined #sml 18:15:27 topic: 5525 Confusing section names 18:16:07 No questions or concerns from WG members present on the proposal in comment #2. 18:16:25 topic: 5526 What does "nested to any depth" mean? 18:18:42 zakim, mute Kirk 18:18:42 Kirk should now be muted 18:19:08 Kumar: this is related to 5564 recursive definition of DerefExpr should be restored 18:19:42 Pratul: need to talk to MSM and John about whether the change suggested in 5564 forces us back to LC. 18:22:43 WG OK with change suggested in comment #2 of 5526. 18:22:59 topic: 5564 recursive definition of DerefExpr should be restored 18:23:48 RESOLUTION: WG approves change suggested in comment #1. Mark as editorial. 18:24:04 topic: 5341 EPR Reference Scheme Note 18:24:09 zakim, unmute me 18:24:09 Kirk should no longer be muted 18:24:34 Ginny: need more time to review. 18:26:04 -Kirk 18:26:19 Pratul: put this on next week's agenda. 18:26:39 +Kirk 18:26:40 topic: 5283 "interchange set" or "interchange model" 18:29:16 Pratul: the term "interchange set validation" would also be affected. 18:31:11 Pratul: we had earlier discussion between "interchange set validation" and "SML-IF model validation". We chose "interchange set validation". Does that mean we prefer "set" over "model"? 18:31:29 Ginny: I like the recommendation to use "interchange model". 18:31:52 Ginny: this is different from calling it "SML-IF model". 18:32:16 Pratul: that would change "interchange set validation" to "interchange model validation". 18:32:57 Sandy: prefer "model" too, since we define "model" as "a set of document". 18:33:37 Kumar: "interchange model validation" is not exactly the same as "SML model validation". 18:34:02 Kirk: right. "interchange model validation" includes "SML model validation". 18:35:38 s/"interchange model validation" includes/"interchange set validation" includes 18:36:51 Sandy: "interchange set validation" is a special invocation of "SML model validation", hence they should use the same term "model". 18:37:19 Kumar: I think the "interchange set" should include both the "model" and meta-data. 18:38:07 Kirk: I think "interchange set" only includes the documents. the meta-data is part of the IF document, not the interchange set. 18:38:46 Pratul: reading the definition of "interchange set". finding it somewhat confusing. 18:40:02 Kumar: again, maybe "interchange set" should include both the "model" and meta-data. IF is just the encoding format. 18:40:32 This is what the spec says today 18:40:50 The interchange set is the set of documents that constitute the SML model [SML 1.1] to be interchanged. 18:41:01 Interchange set validation is the process of assessing the validity of the SML model [SML 1.1] represented by the interchange set while maintaining all assertions and interrelationships among the documents in the interchange set as defined by this specification. 18:42:15 Sandy: Kumar's suggestion is interesting to expliot. Feel that "set" should be used to refer the "set of the document"; "model" could be used to refer to more than the documents. That is, we may want to switch their places. 18:42:51 Kumar: different intuition. "model" is defined by SML. Want to use "set" for what's included in IF document. 18:43:28 Kumar: let's discuss offline, among the interested parties, and come back with a proposal. 18:43:54 ACTION: Kumar to discuss 5283 with interested parties, and come back with a proposal. 18:43:54 Created ACTION-176 - Discuss 5283 with interested parties, and come back with a proposal. [on Kumar Pandit - due 2008-03-20]. 18:44:18 topic: 5390 How to handle non-embedded documents referenced by EPRs in SML-IF 18:44:34 Kirk: part of 5341. suggest to hold it off until we discuss EPR note. 18:44:55 Pratul: should it be a duplicate of 5341? 18:45:09 Kirk: should keep it separate. 18:45:21 topic: 5522 The term "containing element" is not clear 18:45:47 Kumar: already fixed in LC draft. 18:47:11 Pratul: put a comment in the bug explaining the current situation in LC. 18:47:45 Pratul: maybe we want to have a new keyword for issues that are waiting for the commentator to respond. 18:48:32 Ginny: the keyword "decided" seems what we need. 18:49:09 Pratul: change bugs in this category to use keyword "decided". 18:49:36 topic: 5528 xs:import for SML namespace is unnecessary 18:55:06 RESOLUTION: adopt the suggestion in 5528 to remove the xs:import. 18:55:18 topic: 5529 Calrify Appendix C 18:57:46 Pratul: the schema document in C has no SML reference constraint, which means having sml references (or not) in the instance doesn't affect model/document validity. 18:58:00 Kumar: if the model only contains these documents, then Henry is correct. 18:59:33 s/Pratul: the schema/Pratul: (clarify Henry's comment) the schema 19:00:07 Pratul: look at comment #1. even when there is no reference constraint, there are still things that needs to be checked for references. these may affect model validity too. 19:00:42 Kumar: what' in C is not wrong. we may want to add a note to address his concern. 19:03:20 Sandy: do we have examples in Appendices that show how target* constraints work? 19:03:37 Pratul: may want to open a separate issue for it. 19:04:35 RESOLUTION: mark 5529 editorial. Fix it in the spirit of comment #1. WG needs to review the proposal. 19:04:55 topic: 5530 Use consistent form for MIT URI 19:05:54 Kumar: suspect Henry's referring to an earlier draft, because of the mention of xmlns(). 19:09:20 Kumar: suggest to add a comment asking for clarifycation from Henry. 19:10:39 rrsagent, draft minutes 19:10:39 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-sml-minutes.html Sandy 19:10:42 topic: 5532 The previous-draft links are out of date 19:11:49 rrsagent, make log public 19:12:14 rrsagent, draft minutes 19:12:14 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-sml-minutes.html Sandy 19:13:01 I can access them 19:15:02 Pratul: suggest editors' draft should point to the current version; editors define a checklist internal, requiring that the drafts be updated to point to the correct "previous versoin". (basically MSM's points 1 & 2.) 19:15:12 All: agree. 19:15:31 RESOLUTION: mark 5532 editorial, by adopting MSM's suggestions. 19:16:14 topic: 5541 Why is schema-less identification of reference elements important? 19:20:01 Sandy: I think we discussed whether to honor schema defaulted sml:ref before and decided to allow that to be implementation dependent or configurable in processors. this should address Henry's concern, at least in the core spec. 19:22:42 Kumar: also remember that discussion from one of the F2F meetings. can't find the corresponding text. 19:22:59 Pratul: I think the main scenario where you want to use schema defalted sml:ref is when you receive an IF document. 19:25:48 Sandy: suggest to update section 4.1.1, to allow both the original infoset and the PSVI to be used for reference recognition. 19:26:44 ... the current paragraph starting with 'this mechanism" becomes a reason for why allowing to look at the original infoset could be useful. we could add another sentence to explain why using PSVI could be useful: to use default sml:ref=true. 19:26:50 s/defalted/defaulted 19:28:26 Pratul: sounds reasonable. there are scenarios for both schema-less recognition, and schema-defaulted recognition. 19:28:42 Ginny: that means it can be done in either way? 19:29:09 Kumar: should it be "use schema default if performing validation, otherwise either way"? 19:34:40 Ginny: given that SML only defines validator behavior, do we need to be worried about the schema-less scenario? 19:36:25 Schemaless identification of references was driven by scenarios that required references to be quickly identified 19:37:06 when models were being exchanged, stored, or retrieved and these operations required references to be transformed 19:37:54 Pratul: explains why schema-less identification is useful. see Pratul's comment above. 19:39:24 Ginny: so this is convenience; it doesn't affect validation. 19:39:49 ACTION: Sandy to work on a proposal to address bug 5541. 19:39:49 Created ACTION-177 - Work on a proposal to address bug 5541. [on Sandy Gao - due 2008-03-20]. 19:40:23 topic: 5542 How are SML URIs absolutized 19:42:14 Sandy: I think we intentionally left this open. processors may choose to use xml:base attribute, or other ways to establish the base. SML doesn't specify a fixed behavior. 19:42:38 Sandy: we answer this question in IF. 19:43:01 Pratul: the only thing we talk about is when you have a fragment, then it's pointing to the same document. 19:44:13 Ginny: then anything we need to do for this bug? 19:45:38 Sandy: it may help to have an explicit statement about the impl-dependent nature of base uri. 19:45:49 Ginny: we already have it. in section 4.3.1, bullet 3.b. 19:46:12 s/3.b/2.a/ 19:48:37 Sandy: section 4.3, bullet 3.b is the general requirement for schemes using target-complete identifiers; section 4.3.1, bullet 2.a is how the URI sheme is handled. 19:49:33 RESOLUTION: resolve 5542 as invalid. see sections 4.3 and 4.3.1. 19:49:54 -pratul 19:49:57 -Sandy 19:49:58 -Julia 19:49:58 -Kirk 19:49:59 -ginny 19:50:06 -[Microsoft] 19:50:07 XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended 19:50:08 Attendees were Julia, pratul, Kirk, Sandy, +1.530.823.aaaa, ginny, [Microsoft] 19:50:11 rrsagent, generate minutes 19:50:11 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-sml-minutes.html Sandy 20:05:18 Julia has left #sml 20:43:55 Zakim has left #sml