See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Jordan Boucher
<scribe> ScribeNick: Jordan
marv is absent
paul is absent
kirk sent regrets
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Oct/att-0168/20071011-sml-minutes.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Oct/att-0114/f2f_10162007_minutes.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Oct/att-0159/20071017-sml-minutes.html
10/15 handled next week
Resolution: 10/11, 10/16, 10/17 approved
johnarwe: who prefers M-W?
Ginny, Pratul and Kumar prefer M-W
johnarwe: who prefers W-F?
no one prefers W-F
March meeting, same questions
who is unable to make beginning?
no one
who prefers M-W (March 31 - April 2)
Kumar, Marv prefer M-W
who prefers W-F (April 2 - 4)?
Zulah may have a conflict the entire week
Pratul: John and I have discussed topic, we propose Nov. 19
3 weeks from now
Ginny: sounds pretty aggressive
<MSM> Is it usefully aggressive or unrealistic?
Nov 19 is SML WG deliver to webmaster
John: does webmaster process requests the week of Thanksgiving?
MSM: there is a publication moratorium 3-11 November, and another 21 December to 1 January
<MSM> [But Thanksgiving and the day after are indeed MIT holidays and the Webmaster will be off those days]
<MSM> 19 December is the deadline for formal publication requests -- when I spoke, I did in fact say 19th, since 19th at noon would be our deadline for getting the document to the Webmaster
Ginny: comfortable with end of Nov, say the 30th
Kumar: proposes keep the 19th, have 2 calls per week to resolve issues
Ginny: we are working aggressively now
Sandy: agrees with Ginny, more calls may not increase velocity
Zulah: raised concern about quorum - only able to make 1 per week
John: asked the group who is able to make 2 calls per week
MSM: cannot, due to travel plans
Valentina: Mon, Tue only, full Wed-Fri
Sandy: Mon, Wed are busy
Pratul: suggest an additional 1 hour call may be sufficient
John: will send around a
spreadsheet for schedules
... over achieving is allowed! ;-)
Resolution: set LC target date for Nov 30
John: does anyone object to making listed comments official?
Resolution: john to make it so
5025
agreement to do what Sandy proposed
5064
agreement to resolve as Pratul suggests, marking editorial
5069
John: believes editorial (discussion begins ...)
what is the relationship of a reference and a scheme?
agreement to hand the issue to the editors, marking editorial, requires proposal
5106
kirk and john are discussing - mark editorial
5134
<johnarwe> sandy: 5134 is a dup of 4746?
Sandy: suggests mark dup of 4746
John: no objections, mark dup
5169
discussed at F2F, dependent on 5112, mark editorial
Valentina: proposal is define rule binding in SML
MSM: notes in passing that the editors will want to be careful to avoid confusion between (1) the problem of binding an instance to zero or more rule documents, and (2) the problem of knowing which rule(s) in the rule document(s) apply to ('are bound to'?) which elements and attributes in the instance document. The term 'rule binding' suggests the latter to at least some readers (e.g. me).
(John to capture proposal in the bug for editors)
<johnarwe> 2007-10-25 realized I failed to update properly on 10/11.
<johnarwe> Making this editorial per 10/25 wg consensus.
<johnarwe> Proposal is to:
<johnarwe> Review both specs to ensure the terminology defined via bug 5112 is used consistently.
<pratul> Re MSM's Comment (2) - this is taken care of by the sch:rule/@context
Kumar: proposed updating 5112 with this info, closing 5169 as dup
John: updated 5112 and 5169 properly
5178
discussion about concern with floor of XPath version and interop
MSM: suggests pointing out the implications of interop wrt. versions
Kumar: applies generally to floor/ceiling issues, not just XPath
MSM: non-normative text explains the consequences of the normative floor/ceiling issues
mark editorial, resolve as proposed above, needs review
5215
John: (thinking out loud) perhaps normative refs are not necessary in SML-IF
Kumar: remove normative refs that are not actually used within a spec
fix is as Kumar suggested - remove unused normative refs from SML-IF
John: applies to both specs
Discussion about what needs to be present in SML-IF wrt. floor/ceiling
Sandy: proposes adding XML Schema 1.0 required and may support later versions
mark editorial and note about resolution
Pratul: read text he entered into bug for the above 3 part proposal
5040
<johnarwe> 5118
John: reopened for some text changes
mark editorial, make the simple fix
<johnarwe> back to 5040
Discussion about ternary logic - Satisfied, Violated, Unknown
Pratul: Unknown implies Violated
move discussion of 5040 to email
Last Scribe Date Member Name Regrets pending 200y-mm-dd Vijay Tewari 2007-08-30 Wilson, Kirk 2007-08-30 Lipton, Paul 2007-09-20 Lynn, James 2007-09-27 Gao, Sandy 2007-10-04 Smith, Virginia 2007-10-15 Waschke, Marvin 2007-10-16 Valentina Popescu 2007-10-17 Eckert, Zulah 2007-10-17 Kumar, Pandit 2007-10-25 Boucher, Jordan 2007-06-12 Tabbara, Bassam Until 10/30/07 Exempt Arwe, John Exempt Dublish, Pratul Exempt MSM Exempt PH