See al so: IRC log
Continue with SML submission walk-through
<Kirk> scribe : Kirk
Philippe: explained use of "@"s in XML Namespace table in 2.3
<plh> Philippe: you might want to consider using http://www.w3.org/ns/sml when you get t o CR
<plh> ACTION: John to consider switching to short namespace at CR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-sml-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created A CTION-6 - Consider switching to short namespace at CR [on John Arwe - due 2007-06-19].
<plh> URIs for W3C Name spaces
Michael: Extension of Identity Constraints is different than referencing
Sandy: Clarify final sentence in sectio n 3, use of "extension"
Vijay: suggests saying "SML uses to points of extensibility of XML Schema"< /p>
<MSM> XML Schema's validat ion semantics can be extended by schema annotations in the form either of attributes in other namespaces or of xsd:annotation elements (sec. n.n of [XML Schema: Structures]; both forms are used by SML.
<Sandy> Sandy suggests to explicitly mention "annotation" with a reference to the schema spec. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/# cAnnotations
Vijay: are we really extending schema validation semantics?
Michael: Yes--What SML is doing does classify as extending validation semantics
< MSM> Alternative 3: SML extends XML Schema 1.0 by schema an notations both in the form of attributes in other namespaces and of x sd:annotation elements (sec. 3.13 of [XML Schema: Structures]).
johnarwe: Exact words should be editor's job
Ginny: wou ld like to everyone to speak up on this sentence
Marv: To resolve issues quickly, editors sho uld go to the people who feel most deeply about the issue.
Michael: If editors change the text to i mprove, they should perform "due diligence" and consult with those wh o feel deeply.
Sandy: Questions phrase " SML supports a strict subset of XML Schema" but "extends" it. p>
<< cite>scribe> ACTION: Bassam to remove firs t sentence of the section. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-s ml-minutes.html#action03]
<track bot-ng> Created ACTION-7 - Remove first sentence of the sec tion 3.1. [on Bassam Tabbara - due 2007-06-19].
<johnarwe> A good place to bookmark as an anchor to find all the bot commands etc is http://www.w3.org/Guide/
Michael: Subsetting of 1.0 seems
orthogonal to rest
of spec. Seems like a "style guide".
... Propose that we elimi
nate the idea of subset.
Bassam: Domain specific SML models may provide a place for guidelines. Thi s sort of thing is appropriate there rather than here.
Pratul: Nothing in spec depends on th ese features.
Michael: SGML ex
perience raises
concern about subsetting spec; raises interoperabilit
y
issues.
... If the section is a problem it should be se
nt to XML Schema
WG.
Bassam: Proposes that we treat specification as a superset of XML Schema . Don't talk about "profile" of XML Schema. Guidelines are treated in domain-specific areas.
johnarwe: Avoided xs:redefine in
order to preserve backward compatibility.<
/p>
Discussion between Paul and Bassam on value
of
preserving ideas of section in an appendix. Bassam: this
de
pends on context of use of the feature. <scribe>
ACTION: Bassam to remove section 3.1. (This
superse
des ACTION-7.) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-sml-minutes.html#ac
tion04] <trackbot-ng>
Created
ACTION-8 - Remove section 3.1. (This supersedes ACTION-7.) [o
n
Bassam Tabbara - due 2007-06-19]. <
;Paul> Paul: Regarding
discussion of 3.1, I believe i
t important that SML have no
references to any particular group worki
ng on the instantiation
of a particular model. Michael:
Proposition 1 Cross
Validation of documents = putting documents in
one
document. Ginny: No experience contrary to
Proposition
1. Bassam: richer set of const
raints
around identity in SML references. Michael: The richer constraints
might be taken up b
y XML Schema group, but right now the answer
to his concern is in fav
or of Proposition 2. Jim: rais
es question on whether
model needs to be a tree. Bassam: Nothing requ
ires this. johnarwe: Is anyone
to be
liaison with XML Schema WG? Di
scussion of this group's relationship to the
XML Schema WG, esp. RE t
he point that xs:redefine should be
dropped from XML Schema. <
scribe>
ACTION:Bassam to present bes
t practices as
defined by SML domain groups to XML SChema WG for thei
r
consideration. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-sml-minutes
.html#action07]
<trackbot-ng
> Created
ACTION-9 - Present best practices as defined by S
ML domain
groups to XML SChema WG for their consideration. [on Bassam
Tabbara
- due 2007-06-19]. Philippe: Con
sider using IRIs
rather than URIs. Section 3.2
... Proposition 2, there are things you ca
n do in SML that
cannot do under Proposition 1Discussion
of section 3.2
<scribe> ACTION: Philippe to put issue regarding URIs vs IRIs in Bugzilla. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-sml-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-10 - Put issue regarding URIs vs IRIs in Bugzilla. [on Philippe Le H&Ati lde;©garet - due 2007-06-19].
Ph ilippe: Raises issue of use of ReferenceParameters in EPR to r eference a resource.
Vijay: Th e issue is how to construct a EPR to a subpart of a document.
P aul: Suggests using XPOINTER expression in the wsa:Address to identify the subpart of the document.
Vijay: nothing architectural to
guarantee that the URI
will identify that part of the
document.
... We need a me
chanism to define how to architecturally define
document parts by EPR
as URI.
<Vijay> Reference to Section 2.6 of WSA http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-addr-core/#resourcei dentification
<scribe> ACTION: Bassam to remove ReferenceParameters and change wsa:Address to ma tch that sml:uri in the element above in the example. [recorded in htt p://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-sml-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-11 - Remo ve ReferenceParameters and change wsa:Address to match that sml:uri i n the element above in the example. [on Bassam Tabbara - due 2007-06- 19].
Zulah exited meeting
<< cite>Paul> As per request of scribe, modified action 11. No w says:"Bassam to make sml:uri tag have plain URI and do the same in the EPR example in the address tag. removing EPR reference parameters ."
John: We need to cover in 3
.2.1.1
situation in which one element with sml:ref="true" with
multiple occurrences of the same scheme.
... all references m
ust point to the same thing.
Discussion of
this issue.
...Bassam: Spirit is that there is one reference. R
esolution of
multiple references is implementation dependent; modify
second
sentence. of 3.2.1.1
...Pratul: a single reference
may have multiple
representations.
... they must target
the same reference. Checking this
optional.
<scribe> ACTION: Bassam to change second paragraph of 3.2.1.1 to "If a single reference has multiple representations, every representation must target the same element. Validators may check th is condition." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-sml-minutes.html#ac tion10]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-12 - Change second paragraph of 3.2.1.1 to \"If a sing le reference has multiple representations, every representation must target the same element. Validators may check this condition.\" [on Bassam Tabbara - due 2007-06-19].
<scribe> ACTION: Bassam to remove the word "different" from the first sentence of 3. 2.1.2. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-sml-minutes.html#action11 a>]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-13 - Remove the word \"different\" from the first sente nce of 3.2.1.2. [on Bassam Tabbara - due 2007-06-19].
Sandy : There may schemes for representing references that use only attributes. Therefore, xsi.nil="true" would be ineffectual in this case.
Pratul: The spec specifi es (section 3.2), that the reference must be a child element.
Bassam: agrees with Sandy's point that spec leaves this issue open for new schemes that defines the address in the attribute.
< /a><scribe> ACT ION: Sandy to open an issue to address whether we should req uire reference pointers be children. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/20 07/06/12-sml-minutes.html#action12]
<< cite>trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-14 - Open an issue to addr ess whether we should require reference pointers be children. [on San dy Gao - due 2007-06-19].
<MSM > so we need to decide: do we want to require that pointers be given in child elements? If so, we need to say so more explicitly ; if not, we need to revisit the story about nil in 3.2.1.3
Valentina: Question on John's iss ue and use of IRI-schema--should be change sml:uri to something more general?
<plh> Use of IRIs
Sandy: Difference xsi.nil="true" between a "dangling" reference?
Bassam: difference is that nil me ans there is a no address. Dangling reference has a syntactic represe ntation.
<BassamT> ACTION: Bas sam to correct section 3.4 targetRequired such that targetRequired= true is not violated for empty or null references. [recorded in http:/ /www.w3.org/2007/06/12-sml-minutes.html#action13]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-15 - Correct section 3.4 targetRequired such that targetRequired=true is not vi olated for empty or null references. [on Bassam Tabbara - due 2007-06 -19].
Discussion of difference between NULL (nil="true") and Empty.
Mich ael: Nil="true" means there is no children. Therefore, restr ict not checking reference to just nil=true. Empty elements with ni l=false gets treated as a reference.
Pratul: We have proposal from
Michael to consider addi
ng his point in the text.
... Ginny points out that the element
may have content but not
a reference. This supports Michael's approa
ch.
Jim: question: What is ign
ored if
nil="true"?
...John: xsi.nil=true is equivale
nt to
sml:ref="false".
<scribe> ACTION : Bassam to change second sentence of 3.2.13. "A model valid ator MUST NOTdo the SML validation associated with references for tha t element." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-sml-minutes.html #action14]
<trackbot-ng&g t; Created ACTION-16 - Change second sentence of 3.2.13. \"A model validator MUST NOTdo the SML validation associated with reference s for that element.\" [on Bassam Tabbara - due 2007-06-19].
John: No where in the spec do we have a definition of a dangling reference.
&l t;scribe> ACTION: John to open Bugzi lla issue to address defifnition of a dangling reference. [recorded i n http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-sml-minutes.html#action15]
< p class='irc'><trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-17 - Open Bugzilla issue to address defifnition of a dangling reference. [ on John Arwe - due 2007-06-19].Paul:
raises question of how to
use tools--when do we make issue an
Action vs. goes into
Bugzilla.
...John: Public use may i
nvolve detailed "bugs" on highly
specific issue.
<Paul> Paul: suggests that use of bugzil la vs. making something an action item is based on the attention of t his WG. If the WG in real time is resolving something now, it is an A I. If the WG defers something or something is brought to the attentio n of the WG from a public source, for example, it goes into bugzilla. Bugzilla, in short, is a mechanism to place things in a "queue" for later consideration by WG.
Vijay leav es meeting at lunch.
Following an excellent
lunch provided by
Microsoft: Paul presents his suggestion, above, fo
r group to
agree up.
...Sandy: XML Schema group tracks al
l issues in Bugzilla for
tracking.
...Kirk: at point of L
ast call, we need to track every change
to the spec so that the Direc
tor can review changes.
...Michael: this can
Paul: Issue is where is the source of
trut
h? In which system.
... is the truth?
Zulah returns to meeting.
<Pa ul> I said: The basic real time meeting activity of this gr oup, in a sense, is the generation of action items. These action item s, which may or may not specify bugzilla issue(s) being opened.
<BassamT> scribe: bassamt
<Paul> ... When action items are opened without mentioning bugzilla, it is up to the tasked person to decide if they will open bugzilla issues.
<Paul> ...This WG will review as a body t he action items when they are reported as completed before they are c losed.
<Paul> ...suggest w e explicitly agree on tools use. Hence the suggestion above.
<BassamT>
RESOLUTION:
1) use bugzilla for items that need a little lo
nger time to resolve (such as editing the spec)
2) we always ca
pture an action item (including an action item to open a bugzilla item)
MSM: is sml:ref="f alse" meaningful.
Bassam: Yes, in cases where a reference element shows up in an XML document that has not been validated.
G inny: What about invalid values for sml:ref, such as "10" "foo " etc.
<scribe> ACTION: Bassam to change section 3.2.1.4 to handle cases for invalid values of sml: ref="" including "false". [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12- sml-minutes.html#action16]
<trac kbot-ng> Created ACTION-18 - Change section 3.2.1.4 to hand le cases for invalid values of sml:ref=\"\" including \"false\". [o n Bassam Tabbara - due 2007-06-19].
<scribe>
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't fi nd user - BassamT
<scribe> ACTION: Ba ssam to change the spec to support all valid values for sml:ref="tr ue", including sml:ref="1", etc. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007 /06/12-sml-minutes.html#action18]
<
<Bassam> Ginni: can the input node set fo r a reference R be matched to the output node set?
<Bassam> Sandy: does deref() validate targetRequired constraint.
<Bassam cite>> Bassam: No.
<Bassam > Ginny: will think about whether there are scenarios for correlat ion of input and output reference node sets.
<Bassam> MSM: why does deref() return one ta rget element only? This seems limiting.
<Bassam> MSM: will take this offline and raise a bugzilla issue if he deems it worthy.
<Bassam> < strong>ACTION: Sant to add bugzilla item on section 3.2.1.4 WRT to supporting the case when deref() operates on a reference that resovles to multiple target elements. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2 007/06/12-sml-minutes.html#action19]
< trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - Sant
<B assam> ACTION: Sandy to add bugzilla item on section 3.2.1.4 WRT to supporting the case when deref() operates o n a reference that resovles to multiple target elements. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-sml-minutes.html#action20]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION- 20 - Add bugzilla item on section 3.2.1.4 WRT to supporting the case when deref() operates on a reference that resovles to multiple target elements. [on Sandy Gao - due 2007-06-19].
<Bassam> ACTION: Bassam to normalize usage of the term "reference element" for the parent and "reference scheme" as the chi ld element. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-sml-minutes.html#actio n21]
<trackbot-ng> Cre ated ACTION-21 - Normalize usage of the term \"reference element\" for the parent and \"reference scheme\" as the child element. [on Bassam Tabbara - due 2007-06-19].
<Bassam>
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-22 - Remove last phrase of section 3.3.1 second bullet \"... and MUST attempt to resolve ...\" [on Bassam Tabbara - due 2007-06-19].
<Bassam> ACTION: Bassam to change "SomeValidUri" samp le in first example of section 3.3.1 to something more real. [r ecorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-sml-minutes.html#action23]
<trackbot-ng> Created A CTION-23 - Change \"SomeValidUri\" sample in first example of section 3.3.1 to something more real. [on Bassam Tabbara - due 2007-06-19].< /p>
<KirkD> KirkD is Kir k
&l t;Bassam> Change example for clarity and to make it vali d according the URI syntax. Later action to change "URI" to "URI referen ce" may make the latter reason moot.
&l t;Bassam> ACTION: Bassam to change a ll example URI of the form "/foo/bar" to absolute URIs of the form "< a href= "http://example.org/foo/bar">http://example.org/foo/bar ". [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-sml-minutes.html#action24 ]<trackbot-ng> Create d ACTION-24 - Change all example URI of the form \"/foo/bar\" to absolute URIs of the form \"http://example.org/foo/bar\". [on Bassam Tabbara - due 2007-06-1 9].
<plh> URI = scheme " :" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]
<plh> URI-reference = URI / relative-ref
<
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-25 - Change all usages of URI to URI-referenc e which includes both absolute and relative forms of URIs. [on Bassam Tabbara - due 2007-06-19].
<B assam> action- 24
<plh> XPoi nter Registry
<Bassam> ACTION: MSM to open a bugzilla item on whether other fragment identifiers should be supported in the URI reference scheme. [recorded in http:// www.w3.org/2007/06/12-sml-minutes.html#action26]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - MSM
<Bassam> ACTION: Michael to open a bugzilla item on whether other fragment identifiers should be supp orted in the URI reference scheme. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007 /06/12-sml-minutes.html#action27]
<
&l t;Bassam> ACTION: Michael to open a bugzilla item on whether XPointer should be the only fragment identif ier scheme supported in the URI reference scheme [recorded in http://w ww.w3.org/2007/06/12-sml-minutes.html#action28]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-27 - Open a bugzilla item on whether XPointer should be the only fragment identif ier scheme supported in the URI reference scheme [on Michael Sperberg -McQueen - due 2007-06-19].
< /a><Bassam> ACT ION: Michael to think about how different MIME types relate to SML. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-sml-minutes.html#action29< /a>]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-28 - Think about how different MIME types relate to SML. [on Michael Sperberg-McQueen - due 2007-06-19].
<Bassam> ACTION: Bassam to fix EPR example in 3.3.2 to not include reference params that identify a resource. [record ed in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-sml-minutes.html#action30]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-2 9 - Fix EPR example in 3.3.2 to not include reference params that ide ntify a resource. [on Bassam Tabbara - due 2007-06-19].
<Bassam< /cite>> ACTION: Philippe to open a bugzilla item on whether EPR reference scheme should be removed. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/12-sml-minutes.html#action31]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-30 - O pen a bugzilla item on whether EPR reference scheme should be removed . [on Philippe Le Hégaret - due 2007-06-19].