IRC log of xproc on 2006-05-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:44:47 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:44:48 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:44:55 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:44:55 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
14:44:55 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
14:44:55 [Norm]
Date: 25 May 2006
14:44:55 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
14:44:56 [Norm]
14:50:58 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
14:51:05 [Zakim]
14:51:20 [Norm]
Uhm, it's xx:51, is it not?
14:51:25 [Norm]
You're a bit early :-)
14:51:38 [MoZ]
yep ;)
14:51:41 [Norm]
14:56:09 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
14:59:11 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
14:59:53 [Zakim]
15:00:28 [Zakim]
15:01:12 [Zakim]
15:01:23 [Zakim]
15:01:32 [richard]
zakim, ? is richard
15:01:32 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
15:01:54 [ndw_]
ndw_ has joined #xproc
15:01:54 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
15:02:09 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:02:09 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:02:10 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:02:11 [Zakim]
15:02:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see moz, Alessandro_Vernet, PGrosso, Norm, richard, Ht (muted)
15:03:02 [Norm]
rrsagent, pointer?
15:03:02 [RRSAgent]
15:03:16 [Norm]
rrsagent, make log world visible
15:03:16 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make log world visible', Norm. Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:03:23 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
15:03:31 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world visible
15:03:31 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'set logs world visible', Norm. Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:03:39 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
15:03:58 [Zakim]
15:04:04 [Norm]
zakim, ??P0 is Andrew
15:04:04 [Zakim]
+Andrew; got it
15:05:10 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Mohamed, Alessandro, Paul, Richard, Henry, Andrew
15:05:21 [Norm]
Regrets: Michael, Rui
15:05:31 [Zakim]
15:05:37 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:05:37 [Norm]
15:05:41 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Mohamed, Alessandro, Paul, Richard, Henry, Andrew, Alex
15:05:48 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
15:05:53 [Norm]
15:05:59 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous teleconference?
15:06:00 [Norm]
15:06:10 [Norm]
15:06:15 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: 1 June telcon
15:06:15 [Norm]
Any regrets?
15:06:25 [Norm]
None given.
15:06:28 [Norm]
Topic: Face-to-face: 2-4 Aug 2006.
15:06:50 [Norm]
15:06:57 [Norm]
15:07:04 [Norm]
Topic: Mini "Technical Plenary" in January?
15:08:17 [Norm]
Norm proposes that we don't need to meet in January since we will have met in August.
15:09:02 [Norm]
We'll revisit if it actually happens, it's still just in the planning stages today.
15:09:11 [Norm]
Topic: Review of open action items
15:09:15 [Norm]
1. A-13-01: MSM to draft a complete table; ETA: 15 June 2006
15:09:18 [Norm]
15:09:26 [Norm]
Topic: XProc syntax
15:09:32 [Norm]
Email threads:
15:09:41 [Norm]
15:09:47 [Norm]
15:09:57 [Norm]
15:10:04 [Norm]
15:10:26 [Norm]
Norm opens the floor for discussion.
15:11:04 [Norm]
Alex: Can you provide a synopis?
15:11:33 [Norm]
Norm mumbles a bit
15:12:12 [Norm]
We seem to be reaching consensus on the non-directed syntax as our first WD syntax
15:12:45 [Norm]
Henry: You mean the generic syntax, right? Names like p:process and p:input and p:output.
15:12:46 [Norm]
15:13:28 [Norm]
Variables/parameters/inputs/outputs share a single symbol space
15:14:13 [Norm]
Parameters are strings
15:16:15 [Norm]
References in one direction, which Norm describes badly
15:16:25 [Norm]
Richard: I'd been thinking that outputs defined labels and input referred to them
15:19:11 [Norm]
Some discussion, poorly recorded by the hapless scribe
15:20:20 [Norm]
The outstanding issue is XPath references to input documents
15:22:00 [Norm]
Can an XPath expression refer to multiple in-scope input documents? Or only to a single document.
15:22:23 [Norm]
Alessandro: We also seem to have consensus on p:input/p:with-input, etc.
15:23:16 [Norm]
Richard: If all the inputs are available as documents that you can refer to by name in XPath expressions, this results in a hidden dependency within XPaths.
15:23:36 [Norm]
...In order to determine which components have to have been evaulated, you have to peek into the XPath to see what inputs it relies on.
15:23:55 [Norm]
...That seems to be a minor implementation annoyance but a good way of hiding dependencies.
15:24:09 [Norm]
...which is a bad thing.
15:25:01 [Norm]
...It means that two things in apparently unrelated branches of the pipeline may have to wait for each other because of the XPath expression one uses.
15:25:19 [Norm]
...It really is just a syntax issue on one level in that you could draw all the lines in explicitly. It's just that it's burried deep down in the syntax.
15:26:04 [MoZ]
could we uses a "uses=" attributes
15:26:52 [Norm]
Alex: Are we assuming that the variables and parameters share the same symbol space.
15:27:46 [Norm]
Alex: If they share the same symbol space, then there are conversion issues. What happens if you attempt to select a node from a string?
15:28:21 [Norm]
Richard: I think the issue of strings is a red herring. Though I agree that we should restrict them to strings now, that doesn't mean we can't make them more complex in the future.
15:30:18 [Norm]
Richard: If the functionality that's needed is the ability to refer to multiple documents, it could be done more explicitly. There could be a syntax that bound variables to the names of outputs of other steps. That at least would make it expicit which ones were being used.
15:30:54 [Norm]
Mohamed: The idea (uses= from before) is to make it explicit. If they are defined on other points in the document, then maybe they are not visually explicit even if they're technically explicit.
15:31:54 [Norm]
Alex: In XSLT, variables and parameters can be bound to a variety of things and that's useful. The typing issues come into play. I might want to bind inputs to parameters, for example.
15:32:26 [Norm]
Norm: That comes back to the point earlier about parameters being strings.
15:33:25 [Norm]
Richard: I agree that it would be nice to go beyond strings for parameters, but we can stick with strings for now.
15:33:37 [Norm]
Alex: Do we need this distinction of variables and parameters?
15:33:58 [Norm]
Richard: I don't think we've agreed that there are any variables yet.
15:36:35 [Norm]
Alex describes his p:let proposal
15:37:21 [Norm]
Richard: Is this different in any way from a sub-pipeline?
15:37:44 [Norm]
Alex: No, not really. The distinction between variables and parameters seems just not useful to me.
15:39:08 [Norm]
Alex: You need to be able to manipulate parameters just like you can manipulate inputs and outputs in the pipeline
15:41:41 [Norm]
Alex: Let provides a scope
15:43:01 [Norm]
Alex: Let is also hierarchical, it has inputs and outputs.
15:43:55 [Norm]
Richard: It seems to me that the advantage isn't the scoping as such, put a place to do some calculation on some existing parameters to get a new one.
15:44:38 [Norm]
Alex: If you're calculating a parameter with an input, you need to know what its dependent on.
15:44:51 [MoZ]
for me let is a class definition
15:45:42 [Norm]
Alex: I'm quite happy if it can be done as a sub-pipeline, but I don't want to have to call out to some other file.
15:46:26 [Norm]
Norm: I don't think we've discussed that at all.
15:46:34 [Norm]
Alex: This could easily be some variation of a sub-pipeline call.
15:47:27 [Norm]
Richard: In lisp, let is implemented as a macro. It expands into a lambda that's passed some parameters.
15:47:43 [Norm]
...We've been saying that a let in our pipeline might be equivalent to a sub-pipeline and provides a place to bind some new input parameters.
15:48:08 [Norm]
...It would be nice if this were really true and if you could say that let was equivalent to this pipeline construct.
15:49:41 [MoZ]
+1 for using few keywords in Xproc (for p:let to become a p:subpipeline or rich-subpipeline)
15:49:48 [Norm]
Richard: I hadn't imagined that sub-pipelines would be transparent, so let would bind to a sub-pipeline with the right declarations for inputs and outputs.
15:50:01 [Norm]
Norm: I see.
15:50:49 [Norm]
Norm: Let's try to come back around to XPaths over input documents.
15:52:08 [Norm]
Norm: I have reservations about the refer-to-inputs-as-variables style and Richard has given some good technical reasons why it makes analysis harder. Does anyone want to argue in favor of it?
15:52:12 [Norm]
No one speaks.
15:53:00 [MoZ]
using namespaces "io:foo" and "p:foo"
15:53:10 [MoZ]
will this be a solution ?
15:53:54 [Norm]
Alex: What if we had parameter bindings as children of the p:input?
15:55:58 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to record the open issue about what an XPath expression over a document sequence means
15:57:16 [Norm]
Proposal: XPath expressions will be evaluated over exactly one document, syntactic details unresolved.
15:57:28 [Norm]
15:57:57 [Norm]
Alessandro: I think it's hard to record a consensus on that because Jeni isn't here.
15:58:19 [Norm]
...Personally, this is what we've implemented, so I kind of like XPath expressions evaluated over a single document.
15:58:51 [Norm]
Norm: I'll postpone the question for a week.
16:00:18 [Norm]
Norm expresses a desire to have a completed first WD before the f2f.
16:00:26 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business?
16:00:29 [Norm]
16:00:31 [Norm]
16:00:37 [Zakim]
16:00:39 [Zakim]
16:00:40 [Zakim]
16:00:40 [Zakim]
16:00:41 [Zakim]
16:00:43 [Zakim]
16:00:44 [Zakim]
16:00:45 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has left #xproc
16:00:51 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
16:01:18 [Zakim]
16:01:19 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
16:01:20 [Zakim]
Attendees were moz, Alessandro_Vernet, PGrosso, Norm, richard, Ht, Andrew, Alex_Milowski
16:13:13 [Norm]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
16:13:13 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Norm
16:16:41 [MoZ]
Zakim, bye
16:16:41 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
16:20:27 [Norm]
Huh? I do
16:21:00 [MoZ]
16:21:19 [MoZ]
just saw please draft minutes...
16:21:21 [Norm]
What can't you read?
16:21:33 [Norm]
16:21:55 [Norm]
That just means make "draft" minutes as opposed to "final, approved" minutes
16:22:11 [Norm]
You can access
16:22:30 [Norm]
But note that the official minutes will appear at in a little bit
16:22:31 [MoZ]
sorry didn't try to read anything just was wondering that you usually call "please draft minutes", then "make then world wide visible"
16:25:19 [Norm]
Oh, sorry.
16:25:25 [Norm]
I made them world-visible a lot earlier in the call
16:25:47 [Norm]
Because I had IRC problems and wanted to look at the raw log to see if my attempt to setup the title, chair, scribe, etc. had gone through
16:26:27 [MoZ]
oh yeh I see it now
17:04:08 [avernet]
avernet has joined #xproc