simplification step is to ensure for each pattern xml:id there is a corresponding example xml:id
text kept in another explanations.xml documment in which explanations may be picked out by the pattern xml:id or a group xml:id.
patterns.xml will include an optional groupId attribute, e.g. "predefinedTypes"
boilerplate introduction, references etc to be put in the XSLT which generates the spec from patterns.xml, examples.xml and description.xml
examples in examples.xml which don't currently match patterns.xml ids, eg "Beatle" should review and fix
gcowe: when detecting patterns in a schema, not always clear where the patterns are being used. issuing the element or complex type name would be useful
pauld: is this something we need to deliver? sounds like a very nice feature.
gcowe: will investigate
paul demonstrates our workflow, patterns, schematron, examples, running SOAP4r toolkit:
yves: fine-grained patterns may not flush out all the issues
pauld: we could build a complete basic.xsd with a complete instance document for CR
Working group breaks out: Paul, George and Jon write patterns and examples; Yves writes the xmlspec generation; Paul and Otu work on test harness for toolkits.
jonc: very common pattern
pauld: agrees, but isn't this
just two collections composed?
... we have to write XPaths to follow the type=".." value, possibly jumping namespaces, a problem we haven't solved
jonc: examples should include this pattern, if toolkits fail we can split it into a special case
pauld: cool .. but ..
... we decided yesterday to make example ids match pattern ids, let's add an optional @pattern to examples for this case
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-24 with no action, covered by other patterns
pauld: we've had enough pain with this to *know* it's advanced
working group authors example ElementTypeDefaultNamespace with pattern not(contains(//xs:element/@type, ':'))
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-43 as an advanced pattern
pauld: we seem to need to be able
to detect advanced patterns to ensure a schema is really
... is this an issue?
it's not a problem with the tool, but what about our specs?
yves: are we confident this subset isn't too small?
pauld: slightly different
problem, but we are submitting patterns important to us for
basic which we know to work well
... advanced is where we do more work to see what is in common use
... BT would like to use vertical schemas in Web services, but looking to advanced to help that. Basic is a constrained vocabulary of useful stuff for authors working with today's tools.
... I think we're mostly there.
discussion .. issue is that the spec doesn't currently describe behaviour around missing targetNamespace, elementFormDefault, ':' in @types etc
we need MUST text in Basic document to flag these patterns are required. will flag such patterns as "editorial" and check we have text by hand
Aspirational and in common use, but known not to work now.
RESOLUTION: closed ISSUE-23 as an advanced pattern
working group builds examples and xpaths
pauld: like to close this issue as there is no obvious concensus to be had. Let's just publish the patterns and not tell people how to think about them.
jonc: having spent a lot of time thinking about this and trying to push it forward, I have to reluctantly agree
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-37 with no action
no objections to moving this to "advanced"
won't close this as it may yet not be accepted
no objections to moving this to "advanced"
again, won't close this as it may yet not be accepted
union is rejected by a number of tools, moved to "advanced"
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-5 accepted as an advanced pattern
this issue is too generalised. People should submit concrete patterns to be included in the spec. No russian doll, etc patterns have been submitted for basic.
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-18 with no action
pauld: this is just business as usual, we'll list the tools we test against in our report, work being collected here: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/toolkits/
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-4 with no action, business as usual
jonc: goes into what does a good
... expect tools to generate code, but not validate against schema in many cases
pauld: not sure tools will
generate code, even
... what about a pattern which says 0000001
jonc: depends upon the constraints we put into our examples
pauld: think we need some experience here
jonc: Design Consideration?
pauld: that's what MSMQ suggested
... is anyone pushing to have this "Basic"?
gcowe: we use a postcode pattern, we don't expect tools to bail
pauld: seen an email pattern,
... still lost
... problem is validation
... is it good enough for a tool to ignore the pattern?
... propose we close this issue as Basic (subject to discovering tools which reject such schemas) and add a Design Consideration to highlight that tools are unlikely to validate received content or be constrained on lexical representations they output
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-8 with pauld's proposal
pauld: most tools barf at the
... do we have patterns and examples for xs:union?
working group watches pauld painfully edit "AlternateElement" example for xs:union
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-9 as an advanced pattern
pauld: see this as an interesting
lead towards difficult patterns
... we have xs:default as a separate issue, other concrete patterns can be captured similarly as separate ISSUES
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-13 with no action
pauld: I think issues of how programming languages implement bindings, or represent data structures peculiar to a particular environment is out of scope
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-29 with no action
pauld: seems like Axis 1.3 bounces it but 1.4 creates same class as for a sequence, this seems ok to me
jonc: worries me, but not sure what more they can do in Java
gcowe: what about a choice with different types?
pauld: add it as an example, not
sure it's a different pattern
... same type seems like the special case
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-33 as an advanced pattern
gcowe: related to ISSUE-25?
yves: always an issue for meta-data
pauld: propose we accept requests to add specific data structures rather than actively go out to harvest more.
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-30 with no action
jonc: process issue which has been overtaken by events
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-11 with no action
... need to incorporate this into our tests
<scribe> ACTION: pdowney to incorporate names tests into our matrix report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/01-databinding-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-54 - Incorporate names tests into our matrix report [on Paul Downey - due 2006-08-08].
jonc: our experiences using 'all' with tools hasn't been good
pauld: advice in the issue is
against writing invalid schemas, out of scope
... do we punt this to "advanced" or go the extra mile testing with tools?
... does anyone care enough about all for basic patterns?
gcowe: we don't use it
pauld: we're avoiding it
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-19 with 'all' as an advanced pattern
pauld: expect comments on that!
pauld: need a pattern and an example
pauld: looks very much like an
advanced pattern to me
... detecting with XPath simple, except when anyAttibute, or exteded types come into play
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-51 as an advanced pattern
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-51 with WG based URIs
discussion, WG looks at the schema spec, then XML 1.0 spec.
pauld: this is just XML, order of elements is significant, do we need to clarify?
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-63 with no action
pauld: has anyone seen problems with this in tools
jonc: we had issues in the past
pauld: in the days of encoding ..
jonc: more a style thing now
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-22 as a Basic pattern
pauld: this is Vladislav
accurately predicting our rat-holes
... canonical example is xs:Integer which in .NET is a C# String type
... or xs:choice in Java appearing as a class with all the properties available
... which i think is better than presenting DOM
... 'better' being a loaded word
jonc: if we just look at the
wire, we don't care
... sufficient that the toolkit can consume WSDL
pauld: doesn't barf and allows a programmer to access and send the data seems good enough
jonc: that yardstick helps us make progress, +1
pauld: we use, but don't define the term "better user
experience of tools"
.. and that's OK
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-28 with no action
we need more examples
pauld: can XPath capture all our
design considerations, eg. naming of elements and types?
... do we need to provide tooling to capture things which go beyond "patterns"
... do we need to close this issue to make progress?
jonc: what design considerations do we have?
pauld: we have naming of types, that seems to be it
moved issue to testsuite deliverable
pauld: we use what tools are important and available to WG members, and are providing a framework so others can submit test reports
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-36 with no action
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-41 as a basic pattern
<scribe> ACTION: pdowney to submit concrete pattern for ISSUE-21 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/01-databinding-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Submit concrete pattern for ISSUE-21 [on Paul Downey - due 2006-08-08].
pauld: personal adversion to xsi:type, it ain't XML :-)
gcowe: will build testcases
pauld: spoke to Priscilla about
this, she may have new (well old) information.
... in the meantime some kits barf
moved to Advanced
chair: want to move to Last Call working draft ASAP.
we need time to incorporate patterns, build examples and test them off
<scribe> ACTION: ylafon to book 2 hour slot for 8th August telcon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/01-databinding-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Book 2 hour slot for 8th August telcon [on Yves Lafon - due 2006-08-08].
pauld: want to organise an interoperability event, ideally East Coast USA, end of November. Failing that in January. Boston in January. Brrr!
<scribe> ACTION: ylafon to talk with the team about hosting an interoperability event [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/01-databinding-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-57 - Talk with the team about hosting an interoperability event [on Yves Lafon - due 2006-08-08].
suggestion next F2F in Edinburgh, last week September