See also: IRC log
<pratul> Agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Mar/0018.html
<scribe> Scribe: Jordan Boucher
<scribe> ScribeNick: Jordan
Resolution:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Mar/att-0001/2008-01-21-sml-minutes.html
approved
...
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Feb/att-0257/20080122-sml-minutes.html
approved
...
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Feb/att-0264/2008-02-21-minutes.htm
approved
Pratul: please register for
Redwood Shores F2F
... are there any objections to June F2F in Edinburgh?
no objections noted, consensus on having the June F2F in Edinburgh
<Sandy> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2008/06/edinburgh-meetings-info.html
<johnarwe> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2008/06/edinburgh-meetings-info.html
<johnarwe> from Logistics: Hotels
<johnarwe> Edinburgh has a huge range of hotels, you're best bet for finding one is to use the Web. If you're stuck and can't choose between a few options, let me know and I'll give you my best guess.
<MSM> The meeting space is on or near Buccleuch Place, if that helps. Or just look for the University.
Pratul: have not touched my two
John: willing to close 110, if others agree
Pratul: +1
Resolution: close 110
John: introducing Julia McCarthy, joining the work group in place of Valentina, who is moving onto other adventures
John: Julia will not take over Valentina's editor role, but Kirk has stepped up and would like to become an editor
<MSM> welcome, Julia
Pratul: thanks to Valentina for her tremendous service to the group!
Resolution: Kirk to send the proposed note to TAG to
SML WG for review, if no major comments are made it will be OK
for John to send to the TAG
... comments are due by EOD tomorrow, 3/7/08
TAG NOTE DRAFT is here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Mar/0029.html
Pratul: mark as editorial and fix it, if no objections
Resolution: add a comment to clarify that aliases are for documents, mark it editorial and fixed per comment #1
Pratul: any objections?
Resolution: mark as editorial and fix it
Sandy: perhaps further study of XLink is needed for a complete response?
<scribe> ACTION: Kumar to study XLink and respond to 5513 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-sml-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-171 - Study XLink and respond to 5513 [on Kumar Pandit - due 2008-03-13].
MSM: will review Kumar's effort on 5513
<johnarwe> When we move people's comments from mail into bugzilla, we need to make sure we add the originator to the cc list on the bug.
<scribe> ACTION: Pratul will follow up with Henry and report back to group [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-sml-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-172 - Will follow up with Henry and report back to group [on Pratul Dublish - due 2008-03-13].
<MSM> [N.B. there is also a potential administrative tangle: I believe that Bugzilla will only cc: people registered as Bugzilla users. For Henry's case, that's OK, I believe he's registered. But if it becomes an issue, I can add people as registered users -- so if adding someone as a CC value leads to problems, whoever is doing the work should contact me to deal with the problem.]
<scribe> ACTION: MSM to add users to Bugzilla as needed [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-sml-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-173 - Add users to Bugzilla as needed [on Michael Sperberg-McQueen - due 2008-03-13].
<scribe> ACTION: Pratul to explain to Henry how SML handles the cases and see what he thinks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-sml-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-174 - Explain to Henry how SML handles the cases and see what he thinks [on Pratul Dublish - due 2008-03-13].
<MSM> Document
<MSM> A well-formed XML document, as defined in [XML].
MSM to send email to Pratul, who will edit/send to Henry
Pratul: appears to be fixed in LC
<johnarwe> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5298
John: see a related bug for CR, 5298
Resolution: 5521 is a dup of
5298
... cc Henry as well
John: propose asking submitter if the LC fix satisfies the issue
Resolution: put in wording from LC, mark as fixed, comment further if not satisfied
<Sandy> bullet 2.b in 4.3.1: "If it does not retrieve a document in the current model, the SML reference scheme instance is unresolved."
Sandy: suggests a non-normative note as well
<scribe> ACTION: Kumar to formulate proposal for bug 5523 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-sml-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-175 - Formulate proposal for bug 5523 [on Kumar Pandit - due 2008-03-13].
Sandy: does not think the bug proposal is accurate, but OK with another title
MSM: agrees with Sandy
... proposes "not a valid bug"
<Jim> I agree with Sandy
Resolution: we believe the current title is correct, close bug as invalid
<MSM> The attributes and elements on which these mappings rely are present not only in schema documents but also in schemas (in the relevant annotation properties), so we believe the current title is correct.
MSM: agrees with spirit of complaint, but not the proposed title
<MSM> Maybe "Schema component rule" would be better
MSM: perhaps "Schema component rule"
<Jim> Sounds good
<MSM> Or just "Schema rule"
<MSM> [I agree with SG that it's a good idea to have parallel names for rules about schemas and rules about instances -- so maybe also find a new name for current "instance validity" rule? But in SML terms, the rules about instances ARE validity rules ...]
Resolution: fix as suggested above by MSM, mark hasProposal
MSM: give outside reviewers two weeks to respond to work group proposals
<Kumar> The SML WG believes that the changes adopted today resolve this issue fully. I'm changing its status accordingly.
<Kumar> The change in status should cause email to be sent to the originator of this issue, to whom the following request is addressed.
<Kumar> Please review the changes adopted and let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record and changing the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then also change the Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish to record your dissent, but do not wish to
<Kumar> appeal the decision to the Director, then change the Status of the record to Closed. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision.
<johnarwe> (preceding is text xml schema uses for responding to bugs, that sml is considering re-using)
Pratul: any objections to using this text?
Resolution: make it so
John: the original intent was to not place arbitrary restrictions on depth
Kumar: believes it is clear, but perhaps we could explain more
<MSM> Perhaps s/nested to any depth/with function calls nested to any depth/ ?
Kumar: agrees with MSM change
Resolution: fix as suggested by MSM, mark hasProposal
<MSM> [As a data point, to answer a question Pratul raised: yes, use of an unprefixed name for an extension function is not legal in Xpath 1.0. Or so I read Michael Kay's book]
Resolution: mark needsAgreement
Last Scribe Date Member Name Regrets pending 2007-08-30 Lipton, Paul until mid-January 2008 2008-01-21 Gao, Sandy 2008-01-22 Wilson, Kirk 2008-01-22 Eckert, Zulah 2008-01-23 Smith, Virginia 2008-02-07 Lynn, James 2008-02-14 McCarthy, Julia 2008-02-21 Kumar, Pandit 2008-03-06 Boucher, Jordan Exempt Arwe, John Exempt Dublish, Pratul Exempt MSM Exempt PH