See also: IRC log
john: does anyone have any objection to the minutes?
kumar: Kumar's explanation that addressed msm's concerns about 5063 is not in the 12/13 minutes.
john: kumar, can you send the missing text to Kirk so that he can update the minutes accordingly.
kirk: yes
<johnarwe> kirk will re-issue 12/13 minutes
<Kirk> Kirk: Notes of 12-06 seem to imply that Bugzilla issue will be entered after text of the EPR Note is available
<Kirk> ...resolution: Kirk to enter Bugzilla issue for the EPR Note
<Kirk> ACTION: Kirk to open Bugzilla issue for the EPR Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/03-sml-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-155 - Open Bugzilla issue for the EPR Note [on Kirk Wilson - due 2008-01-10].
resolution: minutes from 12/3, 12/6 & 12/10 are approved.
<Kirk> ACTION: Kirk will reissue notes of the 13th with clarification of Pratul's comment on issue 5063 and explanation of proposal from Kumar. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/03-sml-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-156 - Will reissue notes of the 13th with clarification of Pratul's comment on issue 5063 and explanation of proposal from Kumar. [on Kirk Wilson - due 2008-01-10].
john: please register for Jan
f2f
... monday meeting to be discontinued effective 1/3/2008. they
may be restarted if we feel the need.
john: msm, you were going to create a component in bugzilla for the EPR note.
msm: was confused. thought it was
'comment' not 'component'.
... will create a component today.
no such bugs
<MSM> [OK, component "EPR Refernece Scheme" has now been created. Kirk, I have made you the default Assignee for issues against that component.]
john: any objection to marking
5303 as fixed?
... no objection heard. please mark it has closed.
john: Sandy may see a problem with the current text.
ginny: let us postpone reviewing this till Sandy has had a chance to look at it.
msm: we should perhaps contact
the WG responsible for the infoset spec about this
problem.
... the problem: we want to formulate a rule in our spec about
target equality. we want to be able to compare two elements for
equality. As sandy points out in his comment, there is nothing
in the infoset to allow this.
... it will help us if the infoset allowed us to make this
distinction.
kirk: we seemm to require "An assertion that states whether or not the scheme uses target-complete URIs.", however the URI scheme does not define this.
ginny: I will fix this.
msm: it will be easier to review
this if we have a revision to comment# 6 to include Sandy's
suggestions in comment# 7
... acyclic is associated with a type definition. in earlier
spec, a ref was a ref only if it was derived from
refType.
... currently being a ref is no longer associated with being
derived from any specific type.
kumar: acyclic is associated with a type and not an element because we want to prevent cycles being formed by refs of type T or any type derived from T.
msm: believes that specifying target* constraint on elements and the corresponding property being attached to the containing complext type def may be confusing.
kumar: I will work with msm to get his input into clarifying this. This will help avoid the confusion.
kirk: 7.a refered to the proposal (in comment# 6) should really be 6.a
kumar: i agree.
msm: we have a contradiction. acyclic applies to a type but target* apply to elements.
pratul: there were scenarios that required acyclic to be defined on type which prompted this design decision.
kumar: msm are you proposing that all sml constraints be attached to types (rather than some to types and some to elements)?
msm: I am not proposing anything at this point. I will work on some examples.
pratul:do you have an eta for the examples?.
msm:I will have them ready by the next conf call.
kumar: msm raised one issue that
specifying target* constraints on elements but attaching the
corresponding property to containing type can be confusing. I
will work on this with msm and with anyone else who is
interested. Is there any other issue that others would like to
raise?
... does anyone know what zulah's objections were?
john: I believe she thought this should be handled by the xml schema processor.
kumar: I had discussed this with her in private email and pointed out that the xml schema processor does not understand any SML constraint, therefore it will not help us.
john: did anyone read Sandy's
proposal? any comments?
... we should publish working draft if possible.
msm: I agree.
kumar: the editors will create such a draft.
ginny: yes, i agree.
<Kirk> I lost my phone connection, but I'm OK with the proposal
john: proposal: publish the
current editors' draft as a public draft by next Thu?
... no objections heard.
kumar:WG approved the publication of the third draft.
Last Scribe Date Member Name Regrets pending 2007-08-30 Lipton, Paul until mid-January 2007 2007-11-15 Lynn, James 12/24, 12/27, 12/31 2007-11-19 Valentina Popescu 12/24, 12/27, 12/31 2007-11-26 Boucher, Jordan 12/24, 12/27, 12/31 2007-11-29 Gao, Sandy 12/17, 12/20, 12/24, 12/27, 12/31, 01/03 2007-12-06 Eckert, Zulah 12/17, 12/20, 12/24, 12/27, 12/31, 01/03 2007-12-10 Smith, Virginia 12/17, 12/24, 12/27, 12/31 2007-12-13 Wilson, Kirk 12/24, 12/27 2008-01-03 Kumar, Pandit 12/17, 12/20 Exempt Arwe, John 12/17, 12/20, 12/24, 12/27, 12/31 Exempt Dublish, Pratul Exempt MSM Exempt PHMinutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.128 (CVS log)