IRC log of xproc on 2006-02-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:55:34 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
15:55:34 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:55:37 [Norm]
zakim, this will be xproc
15:55:37 [Zakim]
ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
15:55:50 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
15:55:50 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
15:55:50 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
15:55:50 [Norm]
Date: 16 Feb 2006
15:55:50 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
15:55:51 [Norm]
15:56:01 [Norm]
Norm has changed the topic to: XProc
15:56:07 [vikas]
vikas has joined #xproc
15:56:32 [Norm]
zakim, agenda+ Administrivia
15:56:32 [Zakim]
agendum 1 added
15:56:43 [Norm]
zakim, agenda+ Requirements and Use Cases
15:56:43 [Zakim]
agendum 2 added
15:56:48 [Norm]
zakim, agenda+ Any other business?
15:56:48 [Zakim]
agendum 3 added
15:56:49 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
15:56:56 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.705.aaaa
15:58:09 [rlopes]
rlopes has joined #xproc
15:58:35 [Zakim]
15:58:40 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:58:40 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +1.408.705.aaaa, Norm
15:58:50 [Zakim]
15:59:17 [Zakim]
15:59:26 [Norm]
zakim, aaaa is Vikas
15:59:26 [Zakim]
+Vikas; got it
15:59:33 [Norm]
zakim, [IPcaller is rlopes
15:59:33 [Zakim]
+rlopes; got it
15:59:47 [Zakim]
16:00:41 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
16:00:49 [Zakim]
16:01:03 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
16:01:05 [Norm]
zakim, [Arbortext is PGrosso
16:01:05 [Zakim]
+PGrosso; got it
16:01:26 [Zakim]
16:02:03 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
16:02:33 [Zakim]
16:02:41 [richard]
zakim, ? is richard
16:02:41 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
16:03:21 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
16:03:48 [ebruchez]
ebruchez has joined #xproc
16:03:53 [Zakim]
16:04:00 [Norm]
zakim, ??P24 is AndrewF
16:04:00 [Zakim]
+AndrewF; got it
16:04:42 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
16:04:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Vikas, Norm, Alessandro_Vernet, rlopes, Murray_Maloney, PGrosso, Alex_Milowski, richard, AndrewF
16:05:38 [Zakim]
16:05:38 [Norm]
Present: Vikas, Norm, Alessandro, Rui, Murray, Paul, Alex, Richard, Andrew, Erik
16:05:38 [Norm]
zakim, [IPcaller is ebruchez
16:05:38 [Zakim]
+ebruchez; got it
16:05:38 [Norm]
Regrets: Michael Sperberg-McQueen, Henry, Jeni
16:05:38 [Norm]
zakim, next agendum
16:05:38 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Administrivia" taken up [from Norm]
16:06:00 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
16:06:01 [Norm]
16:06:10 [Norm]
16:06:15 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous teleconference?
16:06:15 [Norm]
16:06:31 [Norm]
16:06:37 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: 23 Feb 2006.
16:06:37 [Norm]
Any regrets?
16:06:46 [Zakim]
16:06:55 [Norm]
16:07:00 [Norm]
Topic: Dail-in for the face-to-face at the plenary?
16:07:00 [Norm]
(08:00+01:00-18:00+01:00 Monday and Tuesday, 27-28 Feb)
16:07:31 [Norm]
Andrew would like to call in.
16:07:43 [Norm]
Topic: Agenda planning for the face-to-face
16:09:05 [Norm]
Alex: Infosets/representation of inputs as a topic for the f2f
16:09:21 [Norm]
Norm: Processing model
16:09:38 [vikas]
vikas has joined #xproc
16:10:21 [Norm]
Richard: I was speaking about the non-xml stuff being the same thing
16:11:00 [Norm]
Alex: Does it make sense to spend some time talking about the various tools that are out there?
16:11:06 [Zakim]
16:11:20 [Norm]
Richard: I was going to suggest the attendees that have a pipeline implementation give a brief presentation on it.
16:11:47 [Norm]
zakim, next agendum
16:11:47 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Requirements and Use Cases" taken up [from Norm]
16:13:22 [PGrosso]
16:13:59 [PGrosso]
The above URL is from Alessandro.
16:14:22 [PGrosso]
Alex: Point 1 is to have a defn of parameters which we do now.
16:15:01 [PGrosso]
Alex: Point 2 should be taken care of now too. Alessandro agrees.
16:17:09 [PGrosso]
Alex: Point 3 (standard names for steps). We discussed that a component is like "XSLT" but a step is a thing in the pipeline that may make use of a given component like XSLT.
16:18:54 [Norm]
Richard: Is a step a component plus some parameters plus it's position in the pipeline?
16:19:08 [Norm]
Alex: Yes. In fact a step might even use multiple components.
16:19:57 [Norm]
Richard: We probably don't have to come to complete closure on this now
16:20:40 [Norm]
Alessandro: My comment was narrower, just that in the particular place in 4.6 where the word "step" is used, the word "component" would have been better.
16:21:21 [Norm]
Alessandro: I see a Step like a function call and a Component more like a function.
16:21:40 [Norm]
Alex: I could change 4.6 to say Component and be happy with that
16:21:58 [Norm]
General agreement
16:22:59 [Norm]
Alex: Point 4 is intended to say that we won't create a pipeline vocabulary that can't be validated
16:23:16 [Norm]
Richard: Can you give an example of something that couldn't be validated?
16:23:43 [Norm]
Alex: Atom, for example, voilates the XML Schema UPA rule by allowing interleaving at several levels
16:24:46 [Norm]
Alex: I would like to avoid that, I'd like to create a vocabulary that can be validated with either language
16:25:19 [Norm]
Richard: I agree as long as it's not taken to extremes. Don't use things that many validation tools can't validate. But if we wind up with co-constraints (in attribute values, for example), it may never the less be the best way to do that.
16:25:32 [Norm]
Richard: We can't rule out all constraints that can't be checked by an XML Schema validator.
16:27:24 [Norm]
Richard: This sounds more like a design principle
16:27:33 [Norm]
Norm: I agree with Richard.
16:27:45 [Norm]
Alex: Ok.
16:29:07 [Norm]
Alessandro: I was thinking of the XSLT case, where there are good things that can't be validated easily with XML schema. I wouldn't like us to constrian ourselves not to do that.
16:29:30 [Norm]
Murray: On the other hand, we'd like processing languages to be as easily validated as possible. We should think long and hard before we let this one go.
16:30:29 [Norm]
Murray: If we're going to allow something that isn't validatable, we're going to think long and hard about it.
16:31:15 [Norm]
Alex: Point 5 is about naming of pipelines
16:31:25 [Norm]
Alex: There's no use case for many of the things in the document so that's a more general problem.
16:31:44 [Norm]
Norm: Can you give an example?
16:32:59 [Norm]
Alex discusses giving pipeline documents URIs
16:33:19 [Norm]
Murray: The mechanism that's missing is do I have a way to reference a pipeline and have it invoked
16:33:30 [Norm]
Richard: Do you mean in general or in a pipeline?
16:33:48 [Norm]
Richard: Do we want pipelines to be able to refer to one another?
16:34:11 [Norm]
Alex: Consider 4.9 on composition, you could say use XInclude
16:35:04 [Norm]
Alex: I think naming goes along with composition.
16:35:33 [Norm]
Richard: It's been the case in several specifications that the new language has defined it's own inclusion mechansim. It has always been a hope that XInclude was vailable it wouldn't be necessary. Often, alas, it turns out to be necessary.
16:36:25 [Norm]
Norm: I think the design principle "reuse existing technologies" covers that case.
16:37:41 [Norm]
Norm: I propose that we leave 4.9 and let naming fall out of our composition mechanism if it does
16:38:13 [Norm]
Richard: We also have the case of supplying the pipeline in the URI so that you can write a URI that means run this pipeline on this document with these parameters.
16:38:38 [Norm]
Norm: I can't tell from 4.10 if that is what was for.
16:39:52 [Norm]
Consensus: delete 4.10
16:42:33 [PGrosso]
16:42:46 [PGrosso]
[Norm's email]
16:42:49 [Norm]
Thank you, Paul
16:43:56 [Norm]
Norm describes his ideas
16:48:48 [Norm]
Alex asks about the syntax
16:50:29 [Norm]
Some discussion of flow and parallelism
16:53:24 [Norm]
Richard: I have some problems that are simpler than Alex's case.
16:53:51 [Norm]
Richard: The use of a "current" infoset has two implications: straight through processing, everything is one input or output unless it's named; the other is that it implies sequential processing.
16:54:03 [Norm]
Richard: I don't think the sequential processing is an issue. But the first one is more important.
16:54:33 [Norm]
Richard: If we want to have some components like "XML diff" then I don't think we want to have the two inputs be described in entirely different ways.
16:54:56 [Norm]
Richard: Maybe one has to be input1 and the other input2, but we shouldn't have to go deeper than that.
16:55:21 [Norm]
Richard: but using names for the non-XML data, then I think that's an approache to consider.
16:56:07 [Norm]
A collection?
16:56:16 [Norm]
Richard: that isn't what I had in mind
16:56:36 [Norm]
Richard: Suppose you have a pipeline that wants to cleanup some insignificant diffs and then run the XML diff component.
16:56:56 [Norm]
Richard: I imagine that you might start this pipeline with two inputs and at some point they get merged.
16:57:25 [Norm]
Richard: At the point of the execution of the step that does the diff, I want that to be just like the case where there's only one
16:57:35 [Norm]
Murray: I'm confused.
16:57:46 [Norm]
Alex: Conceptually, this is two pipes inside a pipe I think.
16:58:12 [Norm]
Some discussion of a shell script case
16:58:24 [Norm]
Richard: I'm assuming that we have a way to have two things in the pipeline, I want to get them merged later one
16:58:42 [Norm]
Richard: The way we get two things into the pipeline is by having some upstream thing refer to URIs
16:59:10 [Norm]
Alessandro: I think it's an oversimplification to use the shell script analogy for everything.
16:59:22 [Norm]
Alessandro: There are existing pipeline languages that can already handle this case.
16:59:30 [Alessandro]
(That was Erik)
16:59:41 [Norm]
Oh, sorry.
17:00:26 [Norm]
Murray: Where I'm having difficulty is the case where there's more than one stdin
17:00:40 [Norm]
Richard: That's only if we only allow stdin on a process.
17:00:51 [Norm]
Murray: If we allow each step to have stdin/stdout, that step can also have other inputs.
17:01:45 [Norm]
Richard: Unix actually has a whole bunch of file descriptors, 0, 1, 2, and with sufficient hackery, you can actually read from 5 without ever giving it a name.
17:01:55 [Norm]
Alex: We need a white board for this.
17:02:51 [Norm]
Norm asks for concrete examples
17:03:42 [Norm]
Nearly out of time
17:03:48 [Norm]
zakim, next agendum
17:03:48 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Any other business?" taken up [from Norm]
17:04:04 [Zakim]
17:04:04 [Norm]
17:04:05 [Norm]
17:04:05 [Zakim]
17:04:06 [Zakim]
17:04:07 [Zakim]
17:04:08 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has left #xproc
17:04:09 [Zakim]
17:04:10 [Zakim]
17:04:11 [Zakim]
17:04:13 [Zakim]
17:04:15 [Zakim]
17:04:17 [Zakim]
17:04:18 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
17:04:19 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.408.705.aaaa, Norm, Alessandro_Vernet, [IPcaller], Vikas, rlopes, Murray_Maloney, [ArborText], PGrosso, Alex_Milowski, richard, AndrewF, ebruchez
17:04:27 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
17:10:45 [Alessandro]
Alessandro has left #xproc
17:11:14 [Norm]
rrsagent, make logs member readable
17:11:14 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make logs member readable', Norm. Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:11:20 [Norm]
zakim, make logs public
17:11:20 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'make logs public', Norm
17:11:26 [Norm]
rrsagent, make logs public
17:11:37 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:11:37 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
17:12:10 [Norm]
rrsagent, make logs public
17:12:21 [Norm]
rrsagent, make minutes public
17:12:21 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', Norm. Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:12:25 [Norm]
17:12:33 [Norm]
rrsagent, make logs public
17:16:17 [Norm]
rrsagent, bye
17:16:17 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items