W3C SML Teleconference of 2007-11-12 -- 12 Nov 2007

<pratul> Agenda is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Nov/0116.html

Pratul: Intel has withdrawn for the group

Approval of minutes

No comments on minutes 10/15. Minutes for 10/15 approved.

No comments on minutes 11/1. Minutes for 11/1 approved.

After discussion of status of minutes 11/8. No comments on minutes for 11/8. Minutes for 11/8 approved.

Action Items

John: Will close 148.

Sandy: 120 is superseded by discussion last week. Issue to be closed.
... 142 still working on it.
... Will close 149

<johnarwe> ACTION: Pratul to follow up on action 97 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/12-sml-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-150 - Follow up on action 97 [on Pratul Dublish - due 2007-11-19].

Pratul: Will close 138.

Valentina will have something done by end of week on 143 and 133

Ginny: Will close 128

<scribe> ACTION: Pratul to follow-up with MSM regarding open action items. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/12-sml-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-151 - Follow-up with MSM regarding open action items. [on Pratul Dublish - due 2007-11-19].

Pratul: We will assign Bassam's action items to Kumar. Kumar is updating the action items.

Resolutions on 11/8 call.

Pratul: according item 5 on agenda, everyone should look at the issue.

Kumar: we should make them as editorial now, and if anyone has issues, then raise the issues

Ginny: Question on 5040: Not clear about what we do with table?

Kumar: Table will go into the section on reference constraint.

Pratul: Will make issues as editorial according to the resolution recording in the bug.

John: question on 4811: What is cope of the proposal?

Ginny: Sandy's discussion is part of the resolution.

Pratul: Resolution is in comment #7.

No objections to accepting comment #7 as the resolution.

Item 6 on the agenda

Kumar: Does not understand the example provided by Sandy for issue 5063.

Pratul: We should have an email discussion of Sandy's example.

Sandy: Everyone should review this and think about 5064 at the same time.

Pratul: We will carry on discussion of 5063 in email.

Ginny: We cannot do anything with 5108 because it depends on 4639. We can't do anything with this issue at this time.

Pratul: sandy recommends added <primaryalias> and eliminated [base URI].
... This pertains to issue 5181
... Kumar summarizes the issue.
....Sandy: We should avoid required modifications to the document.

Sandy: People expect to write relative URI dependent on context.

Pratul: We should URIs absolute when it comes to creating SML model with a document.
... Doesn't see why we must pursue this discussion.

Sandy: We have to tell consumers how to handle relative URIs when they are encountered.

Kumar: We split discussion between sml reference and schemaLocation.

<scribe> ACTION: Sandy to add both types examples to the bug 5181 for discussion. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/12-sml-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-152 - Add both types examples to the bug 5181 for discussion. [on Sandy Gao - due 2007-11-19].

Issue: 5248: >locator> is not resolved.

Pratul: We should resolve in conformity to Kumar suggestion.
... Behavior is undefined.

Sandy: We should try to observed different cases: network down vs. consumer doesn't resolve it.

Pratul: It is up to implementation to define what to do.

Ginny: We are not distinguishing use cases in 5040.

Sandy: Where resolution action fails.

<johnarwe> discussion on 5248

<johnarwe> Sandy ok with undefined when resolution fails due to transient netw error

<johnarwe> Sandy would like spec to specify result when resolution process succeeds but there is no document

<johnarwe> ...does not care so much which behavior the spec prescribes

Pratul: What does Sandy expect?

Sandy: We should treat this situation as if the document is not in the IF set.

<johnarwe> Pratul: so we could treat all the error cases the same. If consumer does not process <locator>, if it does but there is a netw error, or it does and there is no doc , then treat those all as if the target document was not in the interchange set

Pratul: shall we move forward with Sandy's option (c) in 5248.

<johnarwe> Kumar notes that this decision differs from 5040, however, that is ok since <locator> is optional

Pratul: Will mark this as editorial.

Adjourn at 5:02

- DRAFT -

W3C SML Teleconference of 2007-11-12

12 Nov 2007

Attendees

Contents

Approval of minutes

Action Items

Resolutions on 11/8 call.

Item 6 on the agenda

Summary of Action Items