IRC log of xproc on 2006-09-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:43:07 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:43:07 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/09/07-xproc-irc
14:43:32 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
14:43:33 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
14:43:33 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
14:43:33 [Norm]
Date: 7 Sep 2006
14:43:33 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
14:43:34 [Norm]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/09/07-agenda.html
14:43:36 [Norm]
Meeting: 34
14:55:21 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
14:59:25 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
14:59:33 [Zakim]
+Norm
14:59:41 [Zakim]
+[ArborText]
14:59:45 [Zakim]
+Murray_Maloney
15:00:08 [ht]
ht has joined #xproc
15:01:29 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #xproc
15:01:53 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:01:53 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, PGrosso, Murray_Maloney
15:02:06 [Zakim]
+??P17
15:02:15 [Norm]
zakim, ??P17 is MoZ
15:02:15 [Zakim]
+MoZ; got it
15:03:29 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:03:29 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:03:30 [Zakim]
+Ht
15:03:39 [Zakim]
+Alex_Milowski
15:04:01 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
15:04:10 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:04:10 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, PGrosso, Murray_Maloney, MoZ, Ht, Alex_Milowski
15:04:14 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
15:04:16 [MSM]
zakim, please call Michael-Office
15:04:16 [Zakim]
ok, MSM; the call is being made
15:04:18 [Zakim]
+Michael
15:04:41 [Zakim]
+??P26
15:04:42 [richard]
zakim, ? is richard
15:04:43 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
15:05:06 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:05:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, PGrosso, Murray_Maloney, MoZ, Ht, Alex_Milowski, Michael, richard
15:05:18 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Paul, Murray, Mohamed, Henry, Alex, Richard, Michael
15:05:24 [Norm]
Regrets: Alessandro, Erik
15:05:31 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:05:31 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/09/07-agenda.html
15:05:54 [Norm]
Accepted.
15:05:57 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:05:57 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/08/31-minutes.html
15:06:02 [Norm]
Accepted.
15:06:06 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 14 Sep 2006
15:06:18 [Norm]
No regrets given
15:06:24 [Norm]
Topic: Review of open action items
15:06:47 [Norm]
A-13-01: Continued.
15:07:02 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
15:07:04 [Norm]
Topic: Liason with GRDDL WG?
15:07:31 [PGrosso]
s/Liason/Liaison/
15:07:38 [Zakim]
+??P0
15:07:39 [AndrewF]
zakim, ? is AndrewF
15:07:39 [Zakim]
+AndrewF; got it
15:07:56 [Norm]
Tag, you're it, Murray.
15:08:11 [Norm]
ACTION: Norm to send mail to the GRDDL WG chair
15:08:20 [Norm]
Topic: Technical discussion
15:09:05 [Norm]
Step Container Proposal: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2006Sep/0003.html
15:10:01 [Norm]
Alex: First, I'd like to introduce the concept of a Component Type
15:11:57 [Norm]
...Viewport and other language constructs create their own component type.
15:12:43 [Norm]
Henry: I agree with the idea. Viewports and things like them need declare-outputs.
15:13:00 [Norm]
...Are there any substantive differences from the UML I sent out last week?
15:13:18 [MSM]
q+ to ask whether 'component type' as described in 1 has anything to do with what actually happens to the data - or is it just a signature?
15:14:30 [Norm]
Some discussion of how Alex's proposal and HT's diagram differ
15:14:56 [Norm]
Richard: Is there a distinction between the signature and the type?
15:15:35 [Norm]
MSM: If I have two components with the same inputs and outputs, are they the same type or different?
15:15:46 [Norm]
Alex: I think they'd be different because they'd have different names.
15:16:03 [Norm]
MSM: I'm perfectly happy to say that the name is part of the component type.
15:16:20 [Norm]
Richard: Type and signature seem to cover the two cases here.
15:16:58 [Norm]
HT: In my diagram, the signature includes the kind so they're the same.
15:17:20 [Norm]
MSM: I like the word signature without the kind.
15:17:54 [Norm]
HT: I don't see any need for a signature without the kind, but I'm happy to change the name on the diagram
15:18:18 [Norm]
Richard: We can introduce it as a term that may be useful without having an impact on the semantics.
15:18:25 [Norm]
...The connections to a component must match its signature.
15:18:33 [Norm]
s/The/We could say that the/
15:18:53 [MSM]
One point worth considering: it's useful to define terms if they will be useful to people discussing the spec, whether they have work to do in normative spec prose or not.
15:18:58 [Norm]
q+ to point out that the spec currently uses the word "signature"
15:19:01 [Norm]
ack MSM
15:19:01 [Zakim]
MSM, you wanted to ask whether 'component type' as described in 1 has anything to do with what actually happens to the data - or is it just a signature?
15:19:27 [Norm]
Richard: Alex, you're proposing that we create subtypes that only have one instance.
15:19:31 [Norm]
Alex: yes.
15:19:51 [Norm]
ack Norm
15:19:51 [Zakim]
Norm, you wanted to point out that the spec currently uses the word "signature"
15:20:30 [Norm]
Norm: We already use the word "signature" in the spec.
15:20:38 [Norm]
Alex: I'm happy to say that the component type is a signature with a name.
15:21:29 [Norm]
Alex: I wanted to have a name for these things like viewport, and for-each, etc. that contain steps.
15:21:38 [Norm]
I called them "step containers"
15:21:47 [Norm]
s/I called/Alex: I called/
15:22:10 [richard]
I suggest "container step" rather than "step container", to emphasize that it's a step
15:22:46 [Norm]
Norm: I was resistant, because I don't want to make them too special, but it will help in the exposition of where bindings can occur.
15:23:31 [Norm]
Norm: I sort of like "container step" better
15:23:46 [Norm]
Richard: It's only one of the aspects of the steps that they're containers. They have other specialnesses to them.
15:24:08 [Norm]
...In particular, they provide control flow.
15:24:23 [Norm]
Murray: Can I suggest the word "procedure" as a grouping of steps.
15:24:43 [Norm]
MSM: There's lots of baggage connected with that term.
15:25:34 [Norm]
Alex: Maybe we need more terms, but having a term for just the container nature seems useful.
15:26:05 [Norm]
Richard: I agree. It may not be immediately apparent that there's an analogy between these control structures and pipelines themselves.
15:26:10 [MSM]
[Would 'compound step' be a useful term?]
15:26:30 [MSM]
[by analogy with 'compound statement' in other pgoramming langauges]
15:27:19 [Norm]
q+ Murray
15:28:31 [Norm]
HT: Pipelines are not in the category of things that a graph is made of. I'd rather not give this a name thta's associated with stage.
15:28:52 [Norm]
Alex: But a pipeline library is for pipelines that you use as steps
15:29:33 [Norm]
HT: I thought we said that there may be a component that allows you to call a component by name, but you can't put a p:pipeline inside a choice.
15:30:46 [Norm]
HT: There are common or garden steps and language constructs which assemble into the graph.
15:31:00 [Norm]
...We distinguished from that pipelines that are packaging for graphs for unitary invocation.
15:31:08 [Norm]
...I thought on that basis that pipeline was special.
15:31:17 [MSM]
so is there a name for what you write when you invoke a pipeline as a step?
15:31:32 [Norm]
Yes, MSM, p:step name="pipelineName"
15:31:40 [Norm]
s/name=/component=/
15:31:54 [Norm]
HT: We need a category for the things you can join up with inputs and outputs. Pipeline is not in that category.
15:33:00 [Norm]
q+
15:33:20 [Norm]
Alex: Pipelines are pretty much exactly like group. One way out of this box is to say that a pipeline is an extension of a group.
15:33:31 [Norm]
...When you use it in a step you're invoking that group.
15:33:41 [Norm]
HT: But it may be named, may contain component declarations, etc.
15:34:05 [MSM]
[It seems we are talking about two sets: the set of things that contain steps, and the set of things that can go inside a choice or other container. Set 1 seems to be equal to Set 2 + {p:pipeline}.
15:34:48 [Norm]
ack Murray
15:35:12 [Norm]
Murray: Rather than simply saying that it has a lot of baggage, can someone explain why "procedure" is not a good choice?
15:35:55 [Norm]
Richard: I find it anti-intuitive. In other programming languages, procedures are the things that aren't syntactic constructs.
15:36:14 [MSM]
[My concern with the term "procedure" is that it suggests to me very strongly an association with parameters and arguments, which I think doesn't match up very well with these constructs.]
15:36:19 [Norm]
...In C or Algol, or any of those things, a procedure is something you call, it's not a control structure. "If" is not a procedure in any language like that.
15:36:39 [Norm]
Murray: But in everyday language, it is fine.
15:36:57 [Norm]
Richard: Indeed, but in the context of programming languages, it doesn't match very well.
15:37:10 [Norm]
ack Norm
15:37:23 [MSM]
[I think Richard has enunciated another aspect of my concerns, too.]
15:37:31 [Norm]
Murray: We seem to have trouble sticking with the metaphore of pipelines that we've adopted.
15:37:47 [Norm]
Murray: In wikipedia, the description of a pipeline includes "processes"
15:38:25 [Norm]
...I keep tripping on various english language constructs where there seem to be simpler english words.
15:39:03 [ht]
I think 'procedure' would be a good alternative for what we have called 'group' heretofore
15:39:21 [Norm]
MSM: I think that there are two different sets we're talking about.
15:39:23 [ht]
but not for the category including group-as-was and choose and for-each
15:39:35 [Norm]
...One is the set of constructs that can contain other constructs, of which the pipeline element is clearly a member
15:39:54 [Norm]
...And the other is non-atomic constructs that can occur as constructs, of which pipeline is not a member.
15:40:25 [Norm]
HT: They both need names. One needs input/output decls everytime they're used and the other is something that can be connected together.
15:40:38 [Norm]
HT: Stages is the word in the diagram for things that you can connect with pipes.
15:40:48 [Norm]
HT: It doesn't have a name for the superclass of things that have things inside them.
15:41:27 [Norm]
Richard: I find Alex's description quite compelling. We need a name for things which contain steps and need declarations.
15:41:48 [Norm]
...Then we can say that so-and-so is a step container and you know how it's connected up.
15:42:13 [MSM]
[The need for the latter is: what can go into a 'when' ? ]
15:42:23 [Norm]
Richard: In HT's diagram, stage is that plus ordinary steps.
15:43:30 [Norm]
Alex: I want to observe that pipelines are a lot like a group.
15:44:42 [Norm]
Group is a local scope for a set of parameters.
15:44:46 [Norm]
s/Group/Murray: Group/
15:46:07 [Norm]
Norm: Is one of these names the least controversial?
15:46:21 [Norm]
Step container
15:46:26 [Norm]
Container step
15:46:31 [Norm]
Procedure
15:46:34 [Norm]
Compound step
15:47:53 [Norm]
Step container looks to be a minimally controversial choice
15:48:03 [Norm]
Murray objects but encourages us to proceed anyway
15:48:16 [Norm]
We'll go with "step container" provisionally.
15:48:54 [Norm]
HT: This is the first time where I'm moved to do double inheritence in the diagram
15:49:03 [Norm]
Norm: Where?
15:49:12 [Norm]
HT: Pipeline and construct are both going to be subclasses of step-container
15:49:23 [Norm]
...And step container will have a body that is a flow graph
15:49:30 [Norm]
...Which is fine, that is actually accurate.
15:50:59 [Norm]
Norm: I think the rest of Alex's message describes the constraints on input/output bindings in terms of what we've just discussed.
15:51:05 [Norm]
Alex: Yes. We don't say enough about this yet.
15:51:20 [Norm]
Alex: This is the point that we had heartburn about at the f2f.
15:52:14 [Norm]
Richard: Step containers bind their input ports to other steps. Right.
15:52:55 [Norm]
Alex: The input binding can't be to something inside you.
15:53:05 [Norm]
Alex: You could bind to the input of some ancestor.
15:53:55 [Norm]
Alex: It might be nice if we could get away from this input/output problem.
15:54:17 [Norm]
Richard: We bind inputs ot sources and sources can either be outputs of siblings or declare-inputs of ancestors.
15:54:21 [Norm]
s/ot /to /
15:54:50 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business
15:55:17 [Norm]
Alex: I sent out a standard library definition. I think it would be good to start writing definitions of the standard components.
15:56:05 [Norm]
Alex: I could start with the use cases and put it together in a more formal way.
15:56:16 [Norm]
Norm: Go, man, go!
15:56:21 [Norm]
Murray: I've come up with another term.
15:56:27 [Norm]
Murray: How about a work flow?
15:57:10 [Norm]
Norm expresses reservations because we're not doing choreography
15:57:48 [Norm]
Adjourned.
15:57:50 [Zakim]
-Murray_Maloney
15:57:51 [Zakim]
-richard
15:57:52 [Zakim]
-PGrosso
15:57:53 [Zakim]
-Norm
15:57:53 [Zakim]
-MoZ
15:57:54 [Zakim]
-Alex_Milowski
15:57:54 [Zakim]
-AndrewF
15:58:01 [Zakim]
-Michael
15:58:03 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
15:58:06 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world visible
15:58:06 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'set logs world visible', Norm. Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:58:17 [Norm]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:58:17 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/09/07-xproc-minutes.html Norm
15:58:36 [Norm]
ht, maybe you and I can chat for five minutes after you've published the next diagram
15:58:56 [Norm]
I'm sure there's an "aha!" moment in UML for me somewhere :-)
15:59:09 [ht]
Sure
15:59:33 [Norm]
rrsagent, set logs world-visible
15:59:37 [richard]
I propose writing the semantics in French so that we get a whole new set of words
15:59:50 [MSM]
richard++
15:59:59 [alexmilowski]
We could use private use characters from unicode.
16:00:06 [alexmilowski]
Then we could choose our own glyphs too!
16:00:07 [richard]
(except of course in the French translation of the spec, in which they would be in German)
16:00:09 [Norm]
Private use?
16:00:19 [Norm]
Surely there are Unicode characters for "flow" and "graph" and such?
16:00:32 [alexmilowski]
And then we'd have an unpronounceable name.
16:00:32 [richard]
There's all those VT100 graphic symbols
16:00:45 [MSM]
yes, but private use is much more fun - if you don't use the PUA, how will we ever manage to get into a catfight with I18n?
16:00:47 [alexmilowski]
Kinda like Prince.
16:01:19 [richard]
We already grabbed the private use characters starting #xED for EDinburgh use
16:05:00 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, Ht, in XML_PMWG()11:00AM
16:05:03 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
16:05:04 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, Murray_Maloney, PGrosso, MoZ, Ht, Alex_Milowski, Michael, richard, AndrewF
16:05:19 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has left #xproc
17:22:55 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc
18:01:36 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
19:33:49 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc
21:27:36 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc