See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribenick: Valentina
Ginny: a discussion about the SML-IF consumer, required a bug to be opened by Ginny; Ginny is not planning to submit a bug
Kumar: not comfortable with the current text but can accept the current content
<MSM> Ginny, is this in connection with 4675?
Ginny:the discussion is not in the meeting minutes;the notes sent on this subject were private
John: Kumar will take a look at the minutes so minutes will be approved next week
<MSM> So for purposes of today's minutes, the key points are (a) that Ginny doesn't currently plan to open a bug after all, and (b) Kumar is reluctantly willing to let it go
John: plan to point them to the editor's copy as soon as 5181 is finalized
John: proposal for 5417 is overdue
Kumar: On action 9, a discussion had taken place with the right group. It seems that there is no best practices available yet.
... proposes to close this action until a best practices is defined
Resolution: Kumar will close this action
John: Kirk has one action overdue; Kirk not here today
John: proposes to target this for CR
Resolution: target bug to CR
John: propose to mark editorial, and target for LC
Resolution: mark editorial, target to LC
Ginny: commenting on John's description in comment #7
... proposes to reduce the amount of text in these definitions; they are repeated in other sections
John: remove the second sentence in all three definitions and leave the rest ( looking at comment #7 in bugzilla )
Resolution: remove the second sentence in all three definitions and leave the rest ( looking at comment #7 in bugzilla )
Ginny: has a problem with vacuous document
... need a definition for this term
Kumar: used this term because MSM mentioned that XML Schema is using the same term
MSM: does not remember using this term in XML Schema
Kumar: Ginny is fine with the notion but not the used word; proposes to have Ginny come up with a better term
Ginny: agrees to propose a new term
<ginny> ACTION: Virginia to open bug to decide on a term for 'vacuous' [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/14-sml-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-170 - Open bug to decide on a term for 'vacuous' [on Virginia Smith - due 2008-02-21].
Resolution: closed as resolved, Ginny to open new bug if necessary to change vacuous term
<MSM> [Not something that needs to delay resolution of the bug, but a possible editorial change: for the existing text, read:
<MSM> An SML-IF producer MAY declare that a model conforms to a specific
<MSM> version of the SML-IF specification by including the version number of
<MSM> the relevant specification as the value of the SMLIFVersion attribute
<MSM> in the document's model element.
<MSM> ]
<johnarwe> preceding is a re-word of 1st sentence, relevant to 5306
Resolution: closed as resolved
MSM: suggests an editorial update, see comments above
Resolution: resolved, with a possible update as suggested by MSM
<johnarwe> MSM can live with that, won't open new bug
Kumar: agrees with Sandy's comments covered under comment #17
Resolution: make the changes proposed in comment #17 and close the defect as resolved ( mark editorial )
Kumar: addressed by the proposal in 5063, comment #17
Resolution: will be closed when 5063 is resolved
Resolution: close as resolved
MSM: suggests to link this defect with 5462
Resolution: close as resolved
Resolution: close as resolved
Ginny: the note sections should be changed to align with the standard format for notes
MSM: proposes to remove 'This note is non-normative' from all notes and make a note at the beginning about all notes being non-normative
<MSM> [The rule about notes being non-normative is in fact already present in 2.1: "The content of this specification is normative except for sections, notes, or texts that are explicitly marked as non-normative."]
Kumar: can fix 6a and 6b from comment #3; proposes to mark the bug editorial
Resolution: mark editorial and fix according to comment #3
John: leave more time for the group to review comments #5 and #6; mark bug editorial
Resolution: close as resolved
John: no reason for keeping this defect opened
Resolution: close as resolved
Resolution: close as resolved
Resolution: close as resolved
Kumar: wonder if the defect requires to clarify an existing notion or expects to change the meaning
... if this requires changes in the meaning of the rules, this change may affect the LC date
MSM: not sure if this is going to fall in the first or second bucket
Resolution: close as resolved
Resolution: close as resolved
Resolution: close as resolved
shoud be closed :)
Resolution: close as resolved
yes
Resolution: close as resolved
Resolution: needs discussion, loop back to it later in this call, time permitting
Ginny: still reading through this section
... the non-normative section is a bit confusing
... will have this done by tomorrow
Resolution: people need more time, bug just opened today
<johnarwe> A set of XML documents is a conforming SML model if and only if it satisfies the following conditions:
<johnarwe> 1.
<johnarwe> Each document in the model MUST be a well-formed XML document [XML]
<johnarwe> 2.
<johnarwe> Each XML Schema document in the model's definition documents MUST satisfy the conditions expressed in Errors in Schema Construction and Structure (§5.1). [XML Schema Structures]
<johnarwe> 3.
<johnarwe> Each Schematron document in the model's definition documents MUST be a valid Schematron document [ISO/IEC 19757-3]
MSM: is the requirement mentioned in this defect feasible ?
Kumar: the requirement is not that the references be valid but to be defined using the SML URI reference scheme
MSM: Kumar's comment addresses his concern
<MSM> [But I notice a new concern: what we intend is that the SML-IF producer's output be 'equivalent' to the input SML model, for some suitable definition of equivalence.]
<MSM> [But the current prose does not define equivalence. I think I'm hearing Kumar say a suitable definition of equivalence is not possible.]
<MSM> If an SML-IF producer translates every SML model as input into <sml:if/> (or whatever the smallest SML-IF model is), is it
<MSM> (a) conforming but not very useful, or
<MSM> (b) non-conforming?
<Jordan> hard stop, bfn
Resolution: fix the bug as in comment #1 and add a non-normative section stating that the expectation is that the input and output model are equivalent; the notion of equivalence will not be defined