SV_MEETING_TITLE -- 17 Apr 2008

scribe: Julia McCarthy

scribenick: Julia

chair: johnarwe

approval of minutes

RESOLUTION: Minutes from 3/31 are approved.

RESOLUTION: Minutes from 4/1/2008 are approved.

RESOLUTION: Minutes from 4/2/2008 are approved.

RESOLUTION: Minutes from 4/10/2008 are approved.

<johnarwe> kumar prefers 11/03 to 11/10, and prefers even more to move it into october

<johnarwe> jim notes 11/4 is election day; MSM adds that CG did consider this

<johnarwe> proposal is oct 28-30 in redmond

<johnarwe> proposal revision: oct 28 1300 - oct 30 1700 in redmond

<johnarwe> no objections noted

Topic: Review of Action Items

Pending action for Kumar (179) to be closed.

Pending action items for MSM - estimate next week.

<johnarwe> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5645

Topic: New bugs

Topic: Bug 5645http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=564506

Proposal from John: Mark 5645 as editorial.

RESOLUTION: Fix as editorial.

Topic: Decided bugs that are at least two weeks old

Topic: Bug 5298http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=529806

RESOLUTION: Remove the decided keyword.

Topic: 5513http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5513

RESOLUTION: Remove the decided keyword; add editorial keyword; editors to make the change.

Topic: 5520http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5520

RESOLUTION: Remove decided keyword.

Topic: 5541http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5541

RESOLUTION: Removed decided keyword.

Topic: 5543http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5543

RESOLUTION: Removed decided keyword; resolve as later.

Topic: 5544http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5544

RESOLUTION: Remove decided keyword. Resolve as later.

Topic: 5545http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5545

Kumar proposes: Remove decided keyword; resolve as invalid.

MSM: prefers to resolve as works for me

New proposal: Remove keyword decided; resolve as works for me.

Topic: 5546http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5546

One proposal; ask editors to do their best to draft the final part of Henry's remark.

Second proposal: do not address the final remark.

RESOLUTION: Remove the decided keyword and resolve the bug without creating a note in the spec. (Resolution code to be decided separately.)

<MSM> [I'd like the record to show that I think the majority is making a mistake; we have the opportunity, without any technical changes to the spec, to be responsive to the commentator, and the majority is declining to take that opportunity. The only rationale given is fear that it would invite closer scrutiny of the spec. I don't think that's a persuasive rationale.]

<ginny> [regarding 5546: My rationale is not fear of scrutiny but the fear that this one note may be construed as incomplete and we may be asked to add more notes along this line.]

Proposal: Resolve as won't fix.

RESOLUTION: Resolve as won't fix.

Topic: 5561http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5561

Members have not reviewed Note draft

Topic: Bugs that need review

Topic: 5283http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5283

<Kumar> constitute: comprise, make up, form, compose, represent

<MSM> "is composed of" again seems to entail physical containment

<MSM> perhaps "packages" ?

Proposal: Comment #7, item 2 - use the word "specifies" in place of "constitutes" or "contains".

RESOLUTION: Comment #7, item 2 - use the word "specifies" in place of "constitutes" or "contains".

Ginny: would like time to think about Comment #7, item 3.

RESOLUTION: Keyword remains as "needs review".

Topic: 5451http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5451

<johnarwe> http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=41079&public=1 shows standing by person

RESOLUTION: Remove needs review keyword; resolve as fixed.

Topic: 5475http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5475

RESOLUTION: Remove needs review keyword; resolve as fixed.

Topic: 5561http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5561

Kirk: would like more time to review.

Topic: 5606http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5606

<johnarwe> revised text (for member w/o live browser): An SML Reference is a link from one element in an SML model to another element in the same model. If the target of the reference cannot be located in the model, the SML reference is considered to be unresolved.

<johnarwe> An SML ref is a link from one element in an SML model intended to target another element in the same model.

<MSM> +1 to Julia's suggestion

<MSM> Q. Can an SML reference resolve to an element outside the model?

<MSM> A1 (Juila): clearly not.

<pratul> A; No

<MSM> A2 (ginny): yes, but then it's in error. (?)

<MSM> Ginny, would you be happier if the second sentence were simply "SML references may be resolved or unresolved"

<Kumar> An SML reference is a link from one element in an SML model to another element.

+1 to Kumar's suggestion

<johnarwe> an issue with the note in 4.1.4 is the stmt in 2.1 that "All notes are non-normative unless otherwise specified."

<johnarwe> ? An SML reference is an element in an SML model that (conceptually) links to another element.

<MSM> A concrete proposal:

<MSM> SML Reference

<MSM> An SML Reference is an element with sml:ref="true".

<MSM> Note: Conceptually, SML references are used to signal a link from

<MSM> one element in an SML model to another element in the same model. If

<MSM> the target of the reference cannot be located in the model,

<MSM> the SML reference is considered to be unresolved.↑SML Reference

<MSM> Scheme.

<ginny> Proposal 2 : remove last sentence from above proposal

<johnarwe> I'm w/ ginny on prop 2.

Ginny to put MSM's proposal without second sentence - in the bug and we will continue discussing next week.

Discussion on 5606 to be resumed next week.

<Kirk> Proposal from Kirk and Kumar: drop "in the same model" in the first sentence of the definition of SML Reference.

<Kirk> MSM feels that the phrase "in the same model" is helpful in certain contexts.

SML Working Group Teleconference

17 Apr 2008

Attendees

Contents

approval of minutes

Summary of Action Items