18:02:19 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sml
18:02:19 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/16-sml-irc
18:02:23 <johnarwe_> johnarwe_ has joined #sml
18:02:24 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sml
18:03:00 <johnarwe_> zakim, this is sml
18:03:00 <Zakim> ok, johnarwe_; that matches XML_SMLWG()2:00PM
18:03:06 <pratul> Agenda is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Oct/0008.html 
18:03:28 <Kumar> Kumar has joined #sml
18:04:17 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
18:04:26 <pratul> Zakim, Microsoft is me
18:04:26 <Zakim> +pratul; got it
18:06:47 <johnarwe_> regrets: Sandy, MSM, Ginny
18:07:46 <kirkw> kirkw has joined #sml
18:08:15 <kirkw> chair: Pratul Dublish
18:08:26 <kirkw> scribenick: kirkw
18:08:33 <kirkw> schribe: Kirk Wilson
18:08:37 <johnarwe_> zakim, who's here?
18:08:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.425.836.aaaa, johnarwe_, ??P15, pratul
18:08:38 <Zakim> On IRC I see kirkw, Kumar, Zakim, johnarwe_, RRSAgent, pratul, Kirk, trackbot
18:09:12 <johnarwe_> zakim, aaaa is kumar
18:09:12 <Zakim> +kumar; got it
18:09:21 <johnarwe_> zakim, ??P15 is Kirk
18:09:21 <Zakim> +Kirk; got it
18:09:22 <kirkw> scribe: Kirk Wilson
18:09:36 <johnarwe_> zakim, who's here?
18:09:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see kumar, johnarwe_, Kirk, pratul
18:09:37 <Zakim> On IRC I see kirkw, Kumar, Zakim, johnarwe_, RRSAgent, pratul, Kirk, trackbot
18:10:00 <johnarwe_> minutes at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Oct/att-0006/20081002-sml-minutes.html
18:10:19 <kirkw> Topic: Approval of minutes from 10/2
18:10:37 <kirkw> RESOLUTION: Minutes approved without objection.
18:10:59 <kirkw> TOPIC: Issues opened by John
18:11:28 <kirkw> Issue 5053: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5153
18:11:51 <kirkw> rrsagent, make log public
18:12:18 <kirkw> John: Issue has to do with word order and clarification.
18:12:43 <kirkw> Pratul: Issue is, Shall we endorse the resolution?
18:14:04 <kirkw> RESOLUTION: We endorse the resolution.
18:14:27 <kirkw> Issue 5155: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5155
18:16:08 <kirkw> RESOLUTION: We endorse the resolution.
18:16:34 <kirkw> TOPIC: Action Items
18:17:01 <kirkw> John: Only two open, from MSM and Pratul for draft of XLink note.
18:17:23 <kirkw> Pratul:  Will have XLink note for F2F.
18:17:55 <kirkw> TOPIC: Latest draft of Test Case Document
18:18:04 <Zakim> -Kirk
18:18:40 <kirkw> My phone connect just dead on me.  Let me get back on.
18:19:11 <Zakim> +??P4
18:19:32 <kirkw> zakim, ??P4 is kirkw
18:19:32 <Zakim> +kirkw; got it
18:19:34 <johnarwe_> zakim, ??P4 is Kirk
18:19:34 <Zakim> I already had ??P4 as kirkw, johnarwe_
18:20:41 <kirkw> Discussion of section 2
18:23:01 <kirkw> Correction to p. 1 line 25:
18:23:11 <johnarwe_> inconsistency betw 1.25 and 3.21-22 to be corrected
18:23:41 <johnarwe_> btw, for the IRC record, for today I am repping IBM since Sandy is not able to attend
18:24:23 <Kumar> from : Therefore, each test will be represented by an SML-IF document. 
18:24:23 <Kumar> to   : Therefore, all tests, except the tests thatt test the locator element, will be represented by an SML-IF document. 
18:24:41 <johnarwe_> 2.16 documentS
18:24:54 <kirkw> s/thatt/that
18:27:52 <kirkw> RESOLUTION: Text as pasted in IRC is approved.
18:28:00 <johnarwe_> 4. 16 resultS
18:28:15 <johnarwe_> 4.16 and -> or
18:28:23 <johnarwe_> 4.17 resultS
18:29:35 <johnarwe_> 4.23 This -> Comparing test results (so it refers back to 1st sentence, not 2nd, which seems like the original intent)
18:34:23 <kirkw> John: bottom of p. 4.37:  We have additional question if SML-IF document is valid, whether the model is SML valid.  This leads to the possibility of a tertiary value of the results.  Results, therefore, are not simply a boolean value.
18:35:34 <kirkw> ...There are states:  SML-IF invalid vs. SML-IF valid (which can be SML valid or invalid)
18:36:18 <kirkw> Kumar: Addressed by lines 1 - 8 on p. 5.
18:36:35 <kirkw> s/are states/are three states
18:42:00 <kirkw> Kumar: This is not a problem for the two implementations that we know.  It will be clear from the test time what the source of the error is.
18:42:38 <kirkw> John: Boolean is correct: Issue is what can be guaranteed from the spec and what you can know as a human.  The two are not the same.
18:45:56 <kirkw> RESOLUTION: No objections from current attendees to approving the text-plan doc with the specific change on p. 1.
18:46:12 <johnarwe_> s/text/test/
18:46:14 <kirkw> s/text-/test-
18:46:36 <kirkw> TOPIC: Review of COSMOS Test Plan.
18:46:46 <kirkw> See Ginny's email.
18:47:21 <pratul> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-sml/2008Oct/0010.html
18:51:45 <pratul> an SML reference (sml:ref = true) using only unrecognized schemes. (#1 above)
18:52:20 <kirkw> Discussion: SML references using unrecognized schemes.
18:52:32 <kirkw> ...What is the expected result of the test?
18:52:58 <kirkw> John: If targetRequired, then SML reference is invalid.
18:54:12 <kirkw> Kumar: Doesn't see much value in writing such a test case.  If both implementations doesn't understand the reference schemes, there is no issue of interoperability.
18:55:38 <kirkw> John: We need to answer the question of whether we are starting with COSMOS and then just discuss additional test cases?
18:56:15 <kirkw> ...Pratul agrees we should start with this question.
18:57:20 <kirkw> RESOLUTION:  Agreed without objection to start with accepting the COSMOS set suite.
18:57:37 <kirkw> s/set/test
18:58:22 <kirkw> Returning to considering Ginny's list:
18:59:48 <pratul> - an SML reference (sml:ref = true) using only unrecognized schemes. (#1 above)
19:00:27 <kirkw> Kumar: Proposal is NOT to add it.
19:00:50 <kirkw> John: If Ginny was to write such a case, we would not reject it.
19:01:09 <johnarwe_> s/we/I/
19:01:48 <kirkw> RESOLUTION: The group will not write such a case, but if Ginny were to write a case, we would accept it.
19:02:48 <kirkw> Second Test Case: does not look like there are tests that test the necessary processing to identify identical targets (section 4.2.3) E.g., bullet #2 is not tested.
19:05:42 <kirkw> Kumar: MS implementation could not test such a condition, since it supports only the SML URI reference scheme.
19:06:50 <kirkw> Pratul: We have different aliases pointing to the same element.
19:07:01 <johnarwe_> sml 4.2.3 #2 starts Otherwise, a model validator MUST consider both targets to be different when 
19:10:27 <kirkw> Pratul: Proposal is to add this test case.
19:10:58 <kirkw> RESOLUTION: We should add a test case to cover this scenario.
19:11:28 <kirkw> ...Pratul: have one or more test cases.
19:11:40 <pratul> I don't see deref() tests for each bullet in section 4.2.7, 1.b.
19:11:53 <kirkw> Third Test Case: no test for section 4.3.1, bullet 1 (wrong namespace for 'uri') and bullet 1.a.
19:11:54 <pratul> Ginny: I don't see deref() tests for each bullet in section 4.2.7, 1.b.
19:13:20 <kirkw> NOTE: to myself--correct this copy error during editing.
19:13:53 <kirkw> Pratul: Proposal is to add test case to cover this scenario: 1.b test case.
19:14:04 <pratul> Proposal: Add test case(s) to cover 4.2.7, 1(b)
19:14:30 <kirkw> Kumar: Since MS supports only one scheme, MS could not test it.
19:15:18 <kirkw> RESOLUTION:  If anybody can write the test case, we will accept it.
19:15:35 <kirkw> ...Attendees are "neutral" to this test case.
19:15:49 <kirkw> s/can/is willing to
19:16:02 <kirkw> Fourth issue: no test for section 4.3.1, bullet 1 (wrong namespace for 'uri') and bullet 1.a.
19:16:05 <pratul> Ginny: no test for section 4.3.1, bullet 1 (wrong namespace for 'uri') and bullet 1.a.
19:16:06 <Kumar> This test case will fall into the optional features test bucket.
19:17:10 <kirkw> s/This test/Third bullet
19:17:55 <kirkw> Pratul: Proposal is to add test cases for this scenario.
19:20:00 <kirkw> RESOLUTION: We should add a test case to cover this scenario.
19:20:15 <kirkw> ...Kumar: there may be a test case for this.
19:20:39 <kirkw> Fifth bullet: no targetRequired tests for derivation by restriction or substitution groups (there are tests for these in targetElement and targetType) - section 5.1.2.1, bullet 1.b and section 5.1.2.2 (for targetRequired).
19:21:06 <kirkw> Pratul: Proposal is to add these test cases.
19:21:13 <kirkw> Kumar: Agreed.
19:22:02 <kirkw> RESULTION:  We should add test cases to cover this scenario.
19:22:35 <kirkw> Sixth bullet: no deref() test for sml:selector or sml:field, sections 5.2.1.2 - bullets 1 and 2.
19:23:21 <kirkw> Kumar:  We have test cases for this; also COSMOS.
19:24:06 <Kumar> id-constraint-KeyDuplicate-invalid.xml
19:26:58 <kirkw> Kumar: Ginny may mean what happens if there are invalid XPath.
19:28:23 <kirkw> Pratul: We need more information from Ginny regarding what she means and go on from there.
19:29:29 <kirkw> ...Pratul will write Ginny an email after the call.
19:29:53 <kirkw> Seventh bullet: no test for section 5.2.1.2, bullet 4.
19:31:33 <kirkw> Pratul: Proposal is to add test cases for this, if COSMOS has no test cases for this scenario.
19:32:28 <kirkw> RESOLUTION: Agreed, no objections.
19:32:54 <kirkw> Eigth bullet: acyclic tests do not mention "intra-document references" so I assume there may not be a test for this. The tests only mention "inter-document references".
19:34:35 <kirkw> Pratul: Proposal is to add test cases to cover intra-document acyclic constraint for intra-document references.
19:35:02 <kirkw> RESOLUTION: We agree with no objections.
19:35:52 <Kumar> s/id-constraint-KeyDuplicate-invalid.xml/InValidKeyDuplicate.xml/
19:35:53 <kirkw> Pratul: Should we have a meeting next week?
19:37:26 <kirkw> Pratul: We will meet next wekk.
19:37:26 <Zakim> -pratul
19:37:28 <Zakim> -kumar
19:37:32 <Zakim> -kirkw
19:37:40 <kirkw> s/wekk/week
19:37:45 <johnarwe_> rrsagent, generate minutes
19:37:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/16-sml-minutes.html johnarwe_
19:37:52 <johnarwe_> rrsagent, make log public
19:38:07 <kirkw> Thank you.
19:38:27 <johnarwe_> looks like it worked too
19:38:35 <Zakim> -johnarwe_
19:38:36 <Zakim> XML_SMLWG()2:00PM has ended
19:38:38 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.425.836.aaaa, johnarwe_, pratul, kumar, Kirk, kirkw
19:38:51 <johnarwe_> I've gotten so paranoid I don't hang up until the log is public
19:40:19 <kirkw> Actually, I did that at some point during the start of session.  Have it on my check off list.
20:48:39 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sml
23:54:28 <MSM> MSM has joined #sml