12:27:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #tsdtf
12:27:23 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-tsdtf-irc
12:27:28 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #tsdtf
12:27:36 <shadi> zakim, this will be TSD
12:27:36 <Zakim> ok, shadi; I see WAI_TSDTF()8:30AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
12:27:44 <shadi> meeting: TSD TF
12:27:49 <Christophe> zakim, will you let me in today?
12:27:49 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, Christophe.
12:27:54 <shadi> chair: CarlosV, Christophe
12:27:58 <shadi> regrets: Tim
12:28:09 <CarlosI> CarlosI has joined #tsdtf
12:28:13 <Christophe> Zakim, that doesn't sound reassuring.
12:28:13 <Zakim> I don't understand 'that doesn't sound reassuring', Christophe
12:28:45 <shadi> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2006Sep/0021.html
12:30:05 <Zakim> WAI_TSDTF()8:30AM has now started
12:30:07 <Zakim> +Shadi
12:31:04 <Zakim> +Christophe_Strobbe
12:31:33 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
12:31:41 <carlosV> carlosV has joined #tsdtf
12:31:55 <shadi> zakim, ipcalles is really Chris
12:31:55 <Zakim> sorry, shadi, I do not recognize a party named 'ipcalles'
12:32:00 <shadi> zakim, ipcaller is really Chris
12:32:00 <Zakim> +Chris; got it
12:32:12 <Zakim> +??P2
12:32:30 <Zakim> +CarlosV
12:32:33 <shadi> zakim, ??p2 is really CarlosI
12:32:33 <Zakim> +CarlosI; got it
12:33:16 <Zakim> +Vangelis
12:35:54 <shadi> scribe: Shadi
12:35:58 <shadi> scribenick: Shadi
12:37:39 <ChrisR> ChrisR has joined #tsdtf
12:37:41 <shadi> agenda+ TCDL version F
12:37:51 <shadi> agenda+ Start of test production phase
12:38:05 <shadi> zakim, take up agendum 1
12:38:05 <Zakim> agendum 1. "TCDL version F" taken up [from shadi]
12:38:43 <shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2006Sep/att-0019/BenToWeb_TCDL_W3C_Submission_DraftF.html
12:41:16 <shadi> resolution: no objection on the global structure of TCDL
12:42:23 <shadi> CV: issues in the metadata?
12:43:14 <shadi> CS: in BenToWeb we used DC terms of the year 2002 (previous version), it has been changed as of january
12:43:29 <shadi> ...we can now use dc:date and dc:description
12:43:48 <shadi> CV: dc:description is not in the "formalMetadata" section
12:44:25 <shadi> CV: can one have markup in dc:description?
12:44:36 <shadi> CS: yes, can derive any datatype
12:48:18 <shadi> SAZ: we need to describe the datatype we use, whichever it is (and XSD should be ok)
12:48:37 <shadi> resolution: no objections to using dc:date (instead of just date), with datatype xs:date
12:49:52 <shadi> CV: any objections to "Extension"?
12:50:12 <shadi> SAZ: yes, the extension model is not adequate
12:54:06 <shadi> CS: want to avoid having extension all over the place, just one single point of extension
12:55:14 <shadi> SAZ: don't see the benefit of chosing this model, could equally well have parsers simply ignore elements and attributes they don't know
12:55:31 <shadi> CS: this is one way of doing it
12:55:56 <shadi> SAZ: agree, philosophical discussion. what is the group preference?
12:56:17 <shadi> CI: agree with SAZ, no point of restricting the extension model
12:57:43 <shadi> CR: no point of restricting the extension model
12:58:05 <shadi> SAZ: just to be clear, both methods provide a way of extending the core vocabulary
12:58:29 <shadi> CS: the current proposal is to extend at the end of each element at a well defined extension point
12:59:14 <shadi> VE: not sure which method is better. the method used in BenToWeb proved useful but there may be a better approach too
12:59:52 <shadi> CV: both methods work, prefer to keep it as is
13:00:27 <shadi> ...one the one hand SAZ and CI wanted to restrict the language, and now taking a liberal approach
13:01:18 <shadi> CI: we have a specific focus, so don't need an extension model
13:01:42 <shadi> ...once we have a stable language, we won't need extension
13:02:02 <shadi> ...but if you insist on having an extension model, then prefer to have it as open as possible
13:04:14 <Zakim> -CarlosI
13:04:32 <shadi> SAZ: agree we have a specific focus so propose to have as small vocabulary as possible
13:04:46 <CarlosI> i'll be back
13:04:51 <shadi> ...on the other hand, need to be as flexible as possible for the future
13:05:03 <Zakim> +??P2
13:05:13 <shadi> ...for example with EARL and TCDL
13:05:53 <shadi> zakim, ??p2 is really CarlosI
13:05:53 <Zakim> +CarlosI; got it
13:07:43 <shadi> CV: what is the resolution? do we add more extension points?
13:08:22 <shadi> SAZ: what is the problem of not defining extension points and just ignoring unknown elements/attributes
13:08:42 <shadi> ....note, this is not the BenToWeb spec, just the convention of this TF
13:09:03 <shadi> CS: it is good to be flexible but comes at the cost of accurate validation
13:11:01 <shadi> CS: also, any added elements should be in a separate namespace
13:11:34 <shadi> SAZ: agree, not good practice to modify someones elses schema
13:12:55 <shadi> CV: we expect the extensions to be content negotiation (HTTP request/response) and pointers, not sure we need others
13:18:56 <shadi> SAZ: for example, if you build a parser for the current TF vocabulary, it understands dc:creator and a bunch of other elements
13:19:15 <shadi> ...however, if you feed it metadata from the BenToWeb project
13:19:39 <shadi> ...which also contains additional elements such as dc:contributor
13:19:55 <shadi> ...validation will fail and it will reject the metadata
13:20:24 <shadi> ...even though dc:contributor information is also in the BenToWeb metadata files
13:21:33 <shadi> s/dc:contributor information/dc:creator information
13:21:35 <shadi> SAZ: if the parser would simply ignore unknown elements dc:contributor, then it could filter out the information it needs
13:24:43 <shadi> CV: two options - 1) leave it as it is, or 2) add more extension points
13:25:11 <shadi> CS: add more points where expect we may need them
13:26:51 <shadi> SAZ: 3rd option is to tell parsers to simply ignore elements or attributes they don't know
13:27:29 <shadi> CS: then you can extend anything and anywhere
13:28:42 <shadi> CI: yes, this is how many vocabularies are defined like HTML etc
13:29:11 <shadi> CV: this makes validation messy, not really the concept of XMLS
13:29:54 <shadi> SAZ: there are certain constriants, like cardinality
13:30:21 <shadi> CS: the new elements will be from different namespaces
13:32:20 <Christophe> <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" />
13:32:52 <shadi> CS: this will allow the core vocabulary to be validated, and additional elements from other namespaces as extension
13:34:29 <shadi> resolution: two options - the one described directly above, or the "Extension" method. this is for voting next week
13:34:31 <Zakim> -CarlosV
13:34:32 <Zakim> -Vangelis
13:34:33 <Zakim> -Chris
13:34:34 <Zakim> -CarlosI
13:34:34 <Zakim> -Christophe_Strobbe
13:34:36 <Zakim> -Shadi
13:34:37 <Zakim> WAI_TSDTF()8:30AM has ended
13:34:39 <Zakim> Attendees were Shadi, Christophe_Strobbe, Chris, CarlosV, CarlosI, Vangelis
13:34:40 <ChrisR> ChrisR has left #tsdtf
13:34:46 <shadi> zakim, bye
13:34:46 <Zakim> Zakim has left #tsdtf
13:34:51 <shadi> rrsagent, make logs world
13:34:55 <shadi> rrsagent, make minutes
13:34:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-tsdtf-minutes.html shadi
13:34:57 <shadi> rrsagent, make logs world
13:35:02 <shadi> rrsagent, bye
13:35:02 <RRSAgent> I see no action items