14:55:10 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 14:55:10 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/08/31-xproc-irc 14:55:26 Meeting: XML Processing Model WG 14:55:27 Scribe: Norm 14:55:27 ScribeNick: Norm 14:55:27 Date: 31 Aug 2006 14:55:27 Chair: Norm 14:55:27 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/08/31-agenda.html 14:55:29 Meeting: 33 14:59:54 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started 15:00:02 +[IPcaller] 15:00:11 Zakim, [ip is Rui 15:00:11 +Rui; got it 15:00:26 +Norm 15:00:45 PGrosso has joined #xproc 15:00:59 +[ArborText] 15:01:23 zakim, please call ht-781 15:01:23 ok, ht; the call is being made 15:01:25 +Ht 15:01:52 AndrewF has joined #xproc 15:02:27 MSM has joined #xproc 15:02:29 +??P3 15:02:32 richard has joined #xproc 15:02:36 zakim, ? is AndrewF 15:02:36 +AndrewF; got it 15:02:58 zakim, please call Michael-Office 15:02:58 ok, MSM; the call is being made 15:02:59 +Michael 15:03:08 +??P5 15:03:08 zakim, ? is richard 15:03:09 +richard; got it 15:03:36 zakim, who's on the phone? 15:03:36 On the phone I see Rui, Norm, PGrosso, Ht, AndrewF, Michael, richard 15:05:27 Present: Rui, Norm, Paul, Henry, Andrew, Michael, Richard 15:05:27 Regrets: Alessandro, Erik 15:05:59 Topic: Accept this agenda? 15:05:59 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/08/31-agenda.html 15:06:05 Accepted. 15:06:07 Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting? 15:06:07 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/08/17-agenda.html 15:06:16 Accepted. 15:06:20 Topic: Next meeting: telcon 7 Sep 2006 15:06:39 No regrets given. 15:07:12 Topic: Comments on the draft 15:07:37 Four things: add a description for p:declare-parameter 15:07:53 ...Document select on p:param (we need to determine the context) 15:08:04 ...Remove the special case in 4.1.1 for a source w/o step 15:08:16 ...Add text about extension attributes and elements 15:08:56 ...Do we allow p:declare-input on for-each, choose, etc. 15:09:37 Zakim, what is the code ? 15:09:37 the conference code is 97762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), MoZ 15:09:54 zakim, who's on the phone? 15:09:54 On the phone I see Rui, Norm, PGrosso, Ht, AndrewF, Michael, richard 15:10:27 +??P27 15:10:56 Zakim, ?? is me 15:10:56 +MoZ; got it 15:11:02 +Alex_Milowski 15:11:17 Present: Rui, Norm, Paul, Henry, Andrew, Michael, Richard, Mohamed, Alex 15:11:30 Henry: We've talked about components and steps as quite different things 15:11:55 ...in the draft, you've moved the other way. Now there are just classes of components. 15:11:59 alexmilowski has joined #xproc 15:12:28 Henry: I think that's a good idea, but I don't think we decided it. 15:13:44 I've always thought of it that way too... 15:13:59 (I'm muted to spare you Husky howling) 15:14:29 Henry: In that case, we need to speak of allowing users to create classes of components 15:15:04 Richard: I think the draft is confusing, it speaks of a graph of components, but choose and for-each aren't described as components. 15:15:40 HST likes 'construct' for the language constructs 15:15:52 and 'component' for XSLT and user-defined stuff 15:15:58 and 'step' for the union of the two 15:16:39 Norm describes how in fact he thinks "for-each" is now in fact a component 15:17:26 Micheal: I'm a little concerned about losing the distinction between steps and components. 15:18:19 ...Personally, I believe that people have a tendency to get confused about class/instance distinctions. 15:19:27 Norm describes pipelines as a graph of components and steps as a mechanism for instantiating those components. 15:20:18 Michael: I've got a pipeline with three XSLT stylesheets applied in sequence. I think I have three XML constructs in the XML description of the pipeline. I think I have three steps/stages in an abstract description of the pipeline. 15:20:41 ...and three control blocks in memory, but perhaps only one copy of the processor if it's renetrant. But I have one of something, what is that? 15:20:48 ...I had thought that that was a component. 15:22:01 Richard: A shell script may run a sequence of two or three programs and two of them may be the same. 15:22:20 ...The fact that in the first case I meant programs and in the second I meant executable file doesn't seem confusing. 15:23:01 Michael: In some contexts, I can certainly imagine getting confused if we didn't have conventions for distinction between those things. 15:24:17 Richard: One reason I don't want to elaborate a whole set of names is because there is in fact at least a third case for each one. Suppose you run a pipeline twice. Now, not only are there are the layers we already had, there's also the instances of them running. 15:24:40 Henry: And this is entirely parallel to any description of an OO system. 15:24:57 Richard: There's also the fact that we have constructs that run a component repeatedly within the same pipeline. 15:25:08 Alex: Do we have to dig that deep? 15:25:40 MSM has joined #xproc 15:25:48 Richard: Let's look at it from the other end. 15:26:09 ...We seem generally happy with the term "step" for the things that aren't built into the language. 15:26:39 ...We need something for both language constructs and things not built into the language. 15:27:09 Michael: You'd rather say we plug the output ports of the X component into the input ports of the Y component. Why not step? 15:27:20 one syllable vs three syllables 15:27:24 Richard: The only reason I don't want to use step there is because we have a step element in the language. 15:29:48 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2006Aug/0095.html 15:29:54 Norm describes his situation where components are synthesised sometimes 15:30:04 See above for the diagram Richard just referred to 15:30:30 Richard: I also want to be able to be able to have steps in the document correspond to single components in the semantics 15:31:25 Henry: The only thing worth noting right now about the diagram is that it goes backwards wrt the current discussion. It uses step for the union. 15:33:12 Michael: I continue to be a little concerned about the absence of a term for the abstraction who's most obvious instantiation is a software module that a user might add to an available library 15:33:31 ...what I'm hearing people say is that they want to use "component" for one of the constiuent parts of the pipeline 15:33:52 ...I don't have a particular desire to use component in a slightly different way. I just don't think of invocations as instances of programs. 15:35:22 Richard: Defining a component, writing a component, is like defining a function. So XSLT would be a function that you called. 15:35:32 ...A line of the program that called that function would be a "function call" 15:35:42 ...And there would be other constructs that weren't function calls like conditionals and loops. 15:36:23 ...In our language, "steps" are like function calls because we don't call the conditional things steps. 15:37:34 Henry: The problem with "step" for "statement" is that we have have an element named "step" which is the equivalent of "function call" 15:38:15 Norm proposes to try to use step and component consistently in the document and see if that helps 15:38:29 Michael: When CMS pipelines were introduced, the authors thought hard about the terminology. 15:39:00 ...They used the term "stage" for the things that go between the pipeline characters. 15:39:11 ...and for the processes that get connected up. 15:39:38 ...I think in the abstract that step would be nicer, but stage does not have the collision with the usage of step as something which invokes something like XSLT 15:40:51 Topic: The select attribute on p:param 15:41:03 Norm summarizes the current state of the document 15:42:19 Norm: I think we need to allow source/href/here on p:param 15:42:33 Alex: I thought we agreed to do that, even though it gives me heartburn. 15:43:00 Alex: I was surprised not to see that in the document. 15:43:25 Alex: I think we should be clear that if you create a param that uses an input that isn't otherwise an input to the step, you're creating a new input dependency. 15:43:48 Richard: It's easy to statically determine what the dependencies are. 15:44:52 +Murray_Maloney 15:45:29 Norm will update the document to allow p:param elements to specify a context for the select attribute. 15:45:39 Henry: I expect in due course that we'll have a shortcut for this. 15:48:28 Norm asks about allowing declare-input on p:choose, p:for-each, etc. 15:48:34 Richard: What about a declare-input that you don't ue? 15:48:38 s/ue/use/ 15:48:59 Norm: Uhm 15:49:21 Richard: It doesn't seem to usefully document anything if you can't prevent dangling inputs. 15:50:14 Norm: Does anyone else want to be able to declare those inputs? 15:50:28 Murray: I don't see any reason not to 15:50:39 Richard: But unless we have rules that say that if you declare one, you must declare them all. 15:51:33 MSM, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2006Aug/0096.html for an attempt to follow up your suggestion wrt 'Stage' 15:51:45 Richard: The effect of declare input is simply to alias an existing name. So how come you're only allowed to use it in these particular places. 15:52:04 Richard: My inclination is not to allow it unless we work out what's allowed. 15:53:07 Norm: My middle ground is to say that a declare-input that you don't use is an error. 15:54:29 Henry: I feel that you should minimize the amount of work on the draft in this area. 15:54:52 Norm: Ok, we'll leave it alone, but not record that as a decision. 15:57:34 Norm proposes revising the draft before next week in an effort to get FPWD out 15:57:49 -Murray_Maloney 15:57:51 -PGrosso 15:57:52 -Norm 15:57:53 -richard 15:57:53 -AndrewF 15:57:54 -Ht 15:57:54 -Rui 15:57:55 -Alex_Milowski 15:57:56 -MoZ 15:57:57 \quit 15:58:00 alexmilowski has left #xproc 15:58:02 -Michael 15:58:03 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended 15:58:04 Attendees were [IPcaller], Rui, Norm, PGrosso, Ht, AndrewF, Michael, richard, MoZ, Alex_Milowski, Murray_Maloney 15:59:39 rrsagent, set logs world-visible 15:59:42 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:59:42 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/08/31-xproc-minutes.html Norm 15:59:53 PGrosso has left #xproc 17:25:37 Zakim has left #xproc 17:42:45 rrsagent, bye 17:42:45 I see no action items