SML WG Teleconf

09 Mar 2009



John, Kirk, Ginny, Sandy, Kumar, Len
John Arwe
Len Charest


Date: 09 Mar 2009

<scribe> Scribe: Len Charest

<scribe> ScribeNick: lencharest

Approval of minutes from 2 Mar 2009

<johnarwe_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009Mar/att-0012/20090302-sml-minutes.html 3/2 mintues

RESOLUTION: Minutes approved

Action Item 217

<johnarwe_> close action-217

<trackbot> ACTION-217 Close bug 6260 closed

Bug 6480

<johnarwe_> kumar's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009Mar/0015.html

<Kumar> <xsl:output

<Kumar> method="xml"

<Kumar> encoding="utf-8"

<Kumar> doctype-system="../xmlspec.dtd"

<Kumar> omit-xml-declaration="no" />

Kumar: Need to have the following in generated XML:

<!DOCTYPE spec SYSTEM "xmlspec.dtd"[

<!ATTLIST spec xmlns:xlink CDATA #IMPLIED>


John: I'll look into it.

EPR note

Kirk: Changes made per last week's teleconf and attached to the bug

John: Any comments to discuss right now?
... Post comments for discussion a week from today

<johnarwe_> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5341#c19

XLink note

<johnarwe_> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5561#c9

Len: Suggest we discuss the subset of posted comments that might be incomplete because they require some input from the working group before investing the work to refine them. This may also help people focus their attention on parts of the comments where, given some immediate feedback, I may be able to refine them further to keep us moving.

Len: Re comment LKC13, "schema" is confusing. Should it be "syntax and semantics"?

John: Not obvious enough to solve here. Let's think about it.

<Sandy> thinks we at least need to change "schema" to "scheme"... and has to leave ...

Len: Re LKC16, text necessary?

<ginny_> agrees with Sandy. Also gotta go.

John: Let's look at the wording around [base URI] in the SML spec.

Kirk: Agree that the sentence is unnecessary.

John: Let's think more about this one, too.

Len: Re LKC19, should the whole section be structured more like an algorithm?

John: Working group had long painful discussion about the declarative (current leaning) vs imperative ("algorithmic") style of spec writing, around Sept 2007 IIRC, and settled on a declarative style at that time. While we could choose differently for the Notes, or even to re-write everything in the imperative style, there is likely value to our readers in maintaining stylistic consistency amongst the working group's specs.

Kirk: This text is based on similar text from the SML spec

Len: How about adding something like "this process stops"?

John: Need input from Sandy, he was one of the more articulate proponents of the declarative style along with MSM. IIRC both had experience with the two styles from Schema history.

Len: Re LKC20, where is the definition?

John: There's an underlying assumption that the ref scheme is pointing to an XML doc because of the definition of 'SML document'.

Len: Re LKC21-23, suggest replacing whole sentence with "The document D must be an SML document as defined by [SML]."

Kumar: Suggest keeping XLink note text as close to SML URI ref scheme definition so readers can easily compare the two.

Len: Re LKC25, is a case missing?

Kumar: If it's not smlxpath1() nor shorthand pointer, then its not an XLink ref scheme instance by definition. This is one way in which the declarative/imperative style choice manifests itself.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.134 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008-11-14 12:03:15 $
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)
2009-01-29              Wilson, Kirk 
2009-03-02              Pandit, Kumar 
2008-03-09              Charest, Len 
Exempt                  Arwe, John 
Exempt                  Henry Thompson