See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Virginia Smith
<scribe> scribeNick: ginny
<pratul> agenda is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Oct/0033.html
Resolution: approved
John: leave action 110 open for now
Pratul: close action 119
Kumar: why would an implementation claim to understand multiple schemes but resolve only 1
Sandy: Trying only 1 scheme is reasonable, e.g. if input is assumed to be valid already based on invocation context
Kumar: fine with that
Resolution: latest version of proposal approved
Pratul: "hasProposal" is attached to bugs for which a proposal has been made; may have multiple proposals
MSM: useful to alert chair to add to agenda for review
Valentina: when is keyword removed?
Pratul: when proposal accepted, remove hasProposal keyword and editorial keyword
<scribe> ACTION: Virginia to document 'hasProposal' usage and add to diagram [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-sml-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-128 - Document 'hasPropsal' usage and add to diagram [on Virginia Smith - due 2007-10-11].
Bug 4639
Kumar: should we also have
document cycles?
... proposing only element-based cycles
<MSM> I take Sandy's proposal to be:
<MSM> the nodes of the graph we are testing for cycles are the elements whose declaration bears the sml:acyclic constraint.
<MSM> the arcs of the graph are pointers from the SML reference element identified on the @ref attribute of the sml:acyclic element, to elements which are nodes in the graph.
<MSM> I think the presentation will need to be work a bit to make this clear and easy to understand, but I am happy with SG's proposal as I understand it.
<scribe> ACTION: Virginia to update proposal for this bug [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-sml-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-129 - Update proposal for this bug [on Virginia Smith - due 2007-10-11].
Sandy: agree with MSM statement above
Bug 4656
<pratul> Kumar's proposal is to make non-root elements optional
<MSM> XPointer support is currently defined as partof the URI scheme, no?
<johnarwe> y
<johnarwe> and sml uri ref scheme is reqd by smlif
<johnarwe> (not by sml, but definitely by smlif)
<MSM> right you are
Discussion of whether fragment identifiers are required for new reference schemes
<pratul> Here's the verbiage from SML spec
<pratul> An SML reference is a link from one element in an SML model to another element from the same model. It can be represented by using a variety of schemes, such as 4.2.1 URI Scheme and Endpoint References (EPRs) [WS-Addressing Core]. SML does not mandate the use of any specific scheme for representing references; implementations are free to choose suitable schemes for representing references. References MUST be supported by model validators that conform to this sp
Kumar: Is a new scheme without a fragment identifier compliant with the SML spec?
Sandy: yes
<MSM> [Did Pratul just say that his understanding of the original intent was that a scheme must support arbitrary target elements?]
<MSM> SG: supporting a scheme means supporting the entire scheme.
Kumar: should separate reference behavior from scheme behavior
Pratul: SML spec is not clear about requiring support for references to non-root elements
<pratul> The intent of the original SML spec was implementations must support references to non-root elements'
<pratul> I agree that the current wording is a bit ambiguous
<pratul> SML spec should define references independent of reference schemes
<MSM> Kumar, I think the discussion has clarified that there are at least two ways to make your proposal more precise: (1) state clearly that a scheme need not support references to arbitrary elements, or (2) define the URI scheme as not requiring support for fragment identifiers. I think there may be different levels of support for those two.
<pratul> An implementation should be free to choose any reference scheme as long as it implements the syntax and semantics of sml references
Ginny: agreed with Pratul's statement
<scribe> ACTION: Virginia to add rewording of spec to bug to address Kumar's concerns [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-sml-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-130 - Add rewording of spec to bug to address Kumar's concerns [on Virginia Smith - due 2007-10-11].
Bug 4657
<scribe> ACTION: Valentina to add her email comments to bug [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-sml-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-131 - Add her email comments to bug 4657 [on Valentina Popescu - due 2007-10-11].
<johnarwe> related email is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Oct/0048.html
Valentina: would like to think about it
Ginny: would like to come back to this later
<Kirk> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Sep/att-0077/Proposal_for_Allowing_smlkeyref.doc
<johnarwe> people can also comment via email.
<johnarwe> (and should, or we'll be here until doomsday)
Kirk's comments above refer to bug 4684 and other bugs impacting 4684
Updated scribe list for next meeting Last Scribe Date Member Name Regrets pending 200y-mm-dd Vijay Tewari 2007-08-09 Waschke, Marvin 2007-08-28 Eckert, Zulah 2007-08-29 Gao, Sandy 2007-08-29 Valentina Popescu 2007-08-30 Wilson, Kirk 2007-08-30 Lipton, Paul 2007-09-06 Boucher, Jordan 2007-09-13 Kumar, Pandit 2007-09-20 Lynn, James 2007-10-04 Smith, Virginia 2007-06-12 Tabbara, Bassam Until 10/30/07 Exempt Arwe, John Exempt Dublish, Pratul Exempt MSM Exempt PH