W3C SML Teleconference 1 June 2009

01 Jun 2009

See also: IRC log


Kirk, lencharest, johnarwe_, Sandy, Ht, Ginny_Smith
John Arwe
Kirk Wilson




<scribe> scribenick: Kirk

<scribe> Scribe: Kirk Wilson

<johnarwe_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009May/att-0012/20090518-sml-minutes.html

Minutes for May 18

Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009May/att-0012/20090518-sml-minutes.html

RESOLUTION: Approved by unanimous consent.

No update from CG

Action Items

No new Action items

EPR Note - new comments

Len: comments are basically editorial

Kirk: Agrees and is working on them. Still needs to look into the hover problem on "Back to Contents" link.

RESOLUTION: Consensus that there is no need to review the document once the changes are made.

XLink Note

Len: New version is ready to be posted to answer the comment raised by Kirk.

Len: Also need to change the wording for the XML reference to match that which in the SML spec.

Kirk: One minor wording change needs to be made: "this specification" --> "SML specification".

Len: Question on wording in section 2 item 4.
... Are we erroring on side of terseness rather than understandability?

<lencharest> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2007/xml/sml/xlink-note.html?rev=1.8&content-type=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1

<johnarwe_> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2007/xml/sml/xlink-note.html?rev=1.8&content-type=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1#examples

John: SML references RFC 3986; but XML Schema spec references the predecessor.

<lencharest> Propose changing "as described in the applicable URI RFC" to "as described in the applicable RFC for URI generic syntax".

John: Any objections to proposing the wording in the XLink note.

RESOLUTION: No objections to proposal

John: Recommends that Len talk to Kumar about the change.

Len: Three changes to XLink note: (1) Issue reported by Kirk, (2) change XML reference text, (3) preceding wording proposal.

John: Any objection to accepting the XLink note with these changes.

RESOLUTION: No objections.

Len: Question: What should be the date on the Notes?

Henry: Use the date of a week from this Thursday -- 11 June 2009

John: Kumar has been submitting these. Len should check with Kumar if he will be available to submit the document.
... Otherwise, Len will have to learn the process or wait until Kumar has returned.

Henry: Date can be in the past by a couple of days (2 or 3 days).

Len and Kirk agree to make the date on the notes 11 June 2009.

Roadmap for future work.

John: We don't have a queue of work. Normal practice is for WG is to remain in existence for about 6 months. We would stay in existence until around Thanksgiving.
... One strategy is to schedule call, but cancel if nothing has come in; or lessen frequency of calls.
... Will not be available during July; in his absence, Henry will run the meeting.
... Team should consider these ideas for next Monday.

Kirk expresses regrets for next Monday. He will email his comments.

Adjournment: 1:05 pm ET.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Updated Scribe List
Last Scribe Date        Member Name         Regrets pending 
2008-05-22              Lynn, James         Until further notice 
2009-01-08              Smith, Virginia     First  half of Mondays (probably scribe-exempt) 
2009-01-15              Gao, Sandy          Second half of Mondays (probably scribe-exempt) 
2009-05-11              Pandit, Kumar 
2008-05-18              Charest, Len 
2009-06-01              Wilson, Kirk        06/08
Exempt                  Arwe, John           
Exempt                  Henry Thompson