See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: Valentina
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Jan/att-0010/2008-01-03-minutes.htm
Resolution: minutes approved
registration link https://www.sporg.com/registration?link_type=reg_info&form_id=96112
Sandy: not sure if he can attend the meeting
<jordan> regrets, I will not attend the F2F
Pratul: thinks that dinner is included in registration fee
Jordan: cannot attend the f2f
Pratul: are there people who may not be able to attend ?
Ginny: not sure at this time
Kirk: not sure
Valentina: not sure
Pratul: who has a strong preference to not have this in Europe ?
nobody has a strong preference to not have the f2f in Europe
Pratul: is there a deadline for a making a decision ?
MSM: in practice, 8 weeks is almost too little; best practice is to set dates 6 months in advance
... process says 8 weeks
Pratul: we can bring this up on the next call in February and decide on this
John: there is a CML WG meeting at the same time in Feb so a few SML WG members will not attend
Pratul: let's talk about this on the 31 of January, or email
Sandy: did not read the comments; needs more time to review this
Pratul: let's not close this yet then; wait for Sandy to review the bug
Ginny: thought that Zulah was supposed to come up with a proposal for this
Pratul: based on note from Zulah, he feels that this can be discussed now and decide within the group
Kumar: last time MSM asked him to update the defect and group comments in one proposal; he did that in comment #9
... only MSM and Zulah asked for this update so he wants to hear MSM comments on what is in bugzilla now
<johnarwe> MSM, near the end of http://www.w3.org/XML/2008/01/sml-reference-constraints.xml section 1.1 is the text "The members of this set of references must not form a cycle." That appears to need some editorial help.
MSM: have a few questions
... 6.a.ii wants to make sure he understands the usecase here
... in what circumstances there can be an entry ?
... satisfied by Kumar's answer
... question for : 'Two identity constraints are considered identical if they have the same qname'
... this should read iff they have the same name
Kumar: agreed, will make the changes
MSM: no more questions related to the content in comment 9
... wants to know if Sandy feels that his concerns are being addressed here
... on a higher level, there are a few design questions, highlighted in a note just sent out
... wants to review this note after Sandy answers on the low level questions
Sandy: he feels the content in comments 9 is correct and it covers all the usecases
Pratul: suggests to move now to MSM's note since Sandy is okay with the content posted by Kumar in bugzilla
MSM: will give an overview of this note since has just been sent to the group and nobody had a chance to review it
... the goal is to outline a set of usecases and see how the proposal covers them
<MSM> Example: if we have three elements and three types: EnrolledCourse as ECType, GradEnrolledCourse as GECType, UGEnrolledCourse as UGECType.
<MSM> Where GECType is derived by restriction from ECType, and UGECType is derived by restriction from ECType.
<MSM> And EnrolledCourse has a targetElement constraint of Course
<MSM> If GradEnrolledCourse and UGEnrolledCourse are substitutable for EnrolledCourse, then they do have a targetElement constraint
<MSM> If they are not substitutable, then they do not have that constraint.
Ginny: what is the reason for restricting these constraints to element declarations ?
Kumar: this is how was defined in the initial submission
<MSM> [In practice, you'd probably want GradEnrolledCourse to have a targetElement value of GradCourse, not just of Course
Kumar: if the constraints are attached to elements then we need this proposal to support inheritance
... proposes to review this proposal in the light that the constraints are defined on elements and review the option of having the constraints defined on types after that
Pratul: everybody agrees to resolve this defect as is and open another defect to review having constraints on types ?
Kirk: okay with opening a bug on the constraints on type issue
Pratul: any objection to resolve this bug as proposed by Kumar ?
Resolution: no objection, the bug will be resolved as proposed in comment 9. A new bug will be opened to track the constraints on types issue
Kumar: is addessed by the same proposal, from 5063
Resolution: resolve this bug as described by proposal in 5063, point 1 and 2
Sandy: proposal described in comment 27
Ginny: have a reservation on the two level conformance
Pratul: suggests to have SMLIF producers being able to produce fully conformant IF documents but they may be able to produce other type of documents
Kumar: seems to be similar with the floor ceiling approach where the floor is a fully conformant IF document
MSM: will add a comment to bug 4675 proposing rewording content
Kirk: suggests to change naming from Full and Minimal conformance to something else
... will add a comment to bugzilla proposing new names
Pratul: besides naming and wording, is everybody okay with the proposal ?
... no objections
Resolution: no substantial issues with this bug, waiting for proposal on name changes and rewording
Ginny: suggests to either close this as wont fix or the WG should be prepared to spend enough time to resolve it properly
Kumar: okay to close as wont fix
MSM: prefer to spend more time analyzing but no strong opinion
Kirk: wants to review this
Pratul: would Kirk have a proposal for the next call ?
Kirk: will have a proposal for the next call, or before the call
Kumar: would be great if the proposal is sent before the call