IRC log of xproc on 2006-10-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:59:09 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #xproc
14:59:09 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/10/19-xproc-irc
14:59:16 [Alessandro]
Alessandro has joined #xproc
14:59:18 [Norm]
Norm has joined #xproc
14:59:45 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:59:45 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm
15:00:28 [Norm]
Norm has changed the topic to: XProc WG meets 19 Oct 2006: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/10/19-agenda.html
15:00:44 [Norm]
Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
15:00:44 [Norm]
Date: 19 Oct 2006
15:00:44 [Norm]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/10/19-agenda.html
15:00:44 [Norm]
Meeting: 40
15:00:44 [Norm]
Chair: Norm
15:00:45 [Norm]
Scribe: Norm
15:00:49 [Norm]
ScribeNick: Norm
15:01:17 [alexmilowski]
alexmilowski has joined #xproc
15:01:39 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has joined #xproc
15:01:46 [AndrewF]
AndrewF has joined #xproc
15:01:50 [Zakim]
+[ArborText]
15:01:52 [rlopes]
rlopes has joined #xproc
15:02:01 [Zakim]
+Alex_Milowski
15:02:03 [Zakim]
+Alessandro_Vernet
15:02:16 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
15:02:21 [rlopes]
Zakim [IP is me
15:02:21 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:02:21 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, PGrosso, Alessandro_Vernet, Alex_Milowski, [IPcaller]
15:02:45 [Zakim]
+??P16
15:02:49 [Zakim]
+??P15
15:02:52 [AndrewF]
zakim, ? is Andrew
15:02:52 [Zakim]
sorry, AndrewF, I do not recognize a party named '?'
15:03:06 [MoZ]
Zakim, ??P15 is me
15:03:06 [Zakim]
+MoZ; got it
15:03:06 [rlopes]
Zakim [IP is Rui
15:03:16 [Norm]
zakim, ??P16 is Andrew
15:03:16 [Zakim]
+Andrew; got it
15:03:19 [rlopes]
Zakim, [IP is Rui
15:03:19 [Zakim]
+Rui; got it
15:03:56 [richard]
richard has joined #xproc
15:04:37 [Norm]
Telling Zakim who you are: http://www.w3.org/1998/12/bridge/info/name.php3
15:04:40 [Norm]
ack moz
15:04:41 [Zakim]
+??P26
15:04:42 [richard]
zakim, ? is richard
15:04:42 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
15:04:57 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:04:57 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, PGrosso, Alessandro_Vernet, Alex_Milowski, Rui, Andrew, MoZ, richard
15:05:20 [Norm]
Present: Norm, Paul, Alessandro, Alex, Rui, Andrew, Mohamed, Richard
15:05:37 [Norm]
Topic: Accept this agenda?
15:05:37 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/10/19-agenda.html
15:06:02 [Norm]
Norm proposes to add "syntactic irregularity in choose"
15:06:25 [Norm]
Accepted.
15:06:26 [Norm]
Topic: Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
15:06:26 [Norm]
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/10/12-minutes.html
15:06:26 [Norm]
Accepted.
15:06:26 [Norm]
Topic: Next meeting: telcon 26 Oct 2006
15:07:22 [Norm]
s/Accepted./Delayed until next week; scribe failed to post minutes./
15:08:02 [Norm]
No regrets given.
15:08:33 [Norm]
s/No regrets given./Mohamed gives regrets for 26 Oct./
15:08:40 [Norm]
Topic: Review of action items
15:08:45 [Norm]
A-13-01 continued
15:08:50 [Norm]
A-39-01 completed
15:08:55 [Zakim]
+Murray_Maloney
15:09:15 [Norm]
Topic: Review of 13 Oct draft
15:09:55 [Norm]
Continued to next week.
15:10:14 [Norm]
Topic: Dynamically computed parameters
15:10:45 [Norm]
Alex: I wonder if I'm off in a corner by myself.
15:10:50 [Norm]
Murray: Yes, I think so.
15:11:07 [Norm]
Alex: Ok, but I note that we don't have any use cases in our requirements document that require computed parameters.
15:11:30 [Norm]
Norm: Any volunteers to produce some?
15:12:09 [Norm]
ACTION: A-40-01 Richard to construct some use cases for computed parameters.
15:12:19 [Norm]
ACTION: A-40-02 Norm to construct some use cases for computed parameters.
15:12:50 [Norm]
Murray: It seems to me that you can pick a use case that exists and add a sentence that says you get the parameters from a configuration file.
15:13:12 [Norm]
Alex: I think we need something much more complex in order to justify adding this large a feature.
15:13:44 [Norm]
Richard: We should have them as use cases so that we can say we don't need computed parameters for them.
15:14:07 [ht]
zakim, please call ht-781
15:14:07 [Zakim]
ok, ht; the call is being made
15:14:09 [Zakim]
+Ht
15:14:31 [ht]
Henry joins the call at 14 past the hour
15:14:38 [Norm]
Alex: I think the manifest case is covered by 5.6.
15:15:00 [richard]
can someone paste in the url for the use cases
15:15:36 [Norm]
Norm: I concede that the alternative works but is perhaps more complex than most users would think of.
15:16:28 [Norm]
XProc use cases and requirements: ->http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xproc-requirements-20060411/
15:16:43 [Norm]
Murray: Alex has asked us to add to the use cases document, in terms of process do we need to do that?
15:17:12 [Norm]
Norm: No, we don't have to.
15:17:17 [Norm]
...but we should
15:18:05 [Norm]
Richard: How seriously do we have to take these use cases?
15:18:13 [Norm]
Alex: I think we should have a non-normative note that shows solutions to all of them.
15:18:17 [Norm]
Norm: I agree
15:19:20 [Norm]
Norm: I propose that the editor be directed to add support for computed parameters to the language document.
15:19:31 [Norm]
Accepted.
15:19:48 [Norm]
ACTION: A-40-03 Norm to update the language document to describe computed parameters
15:20:14 [Norm]
Alex: We don't have the ability to compute a parameter on group.
15:21:10 [Norm]
Norm: We have declare parameter on group.
15:21:53 [Norm]
Alex: So that's going to allow step/source too?
15:21:58 [Norm]
Norm: Yes, I think so.
15:22:19 [Norm]
Henry: I'd be perfectly happy if we used parameter *everywhere* except declare-step-type (or whatever we called it)
15:22:33 [Norm]
Alex: Declare-parameter makes sense on pipeline.
15:22:53 [MSM]
zakim, please call MSM-Office
15:22:53 [Zakim]
ok, MSM; the call is being made
15:22:54 [Zakim]
+MSM
15:23:00 [Norm]
Richard: There are three different things: 1. saying that some step has parameters; 2. saying what they are for some instance; 3. places where you have to do them both at once.
15:23:06 [Norm]
...Pipelines are in that third case.
15:23:17 [Norm]
...The same is true for group, for-each, and so one.
15:23:32 [Norm]
...We seem to have decided that you use declare-parameter for 1 and 3 and parameter for 2.
15:23:42 [Norm]
Norm: I think that's confusing, it means some things have declare and some don't.
15:24:36 [Norm]
Richard: Why do we have declare anywhere except component definitions?
15:25:02 [Norm]
Henry: You need to declare outputs that are then bound to inputs. You declare things that you can refer to elsewhere, then there are certain aspects of for-each and when that need to be declared.
15:25:22 [Norm]
...Input/output and declare-input/declare-output are much different than parameter/declare-parameter.
15:25:34 [Norm]
...I think the false parallelism that's there at the moment is already confusing.
15:25:53 [Norm]
Richard: What is the false parallel?
15:26:49 [Norm]
Henry: When you say declare-output on a when, that's there so that somewhere else some input can reference it. The source is always a declare-output. The only parallel for parameter would be to say that parameter has to refer to a declare-parameter.
15:27:00 [Norm]
...That's not true for group/when/for-each and such things.
15:27:06 [Norm]
...That seems very misleading.
15:27:29 [Norm]
Richard: Declare things declare either inputs, outputs or parameters.
15:28:16 [Norm]
...There are two things you then do, give values to them and the other is that use those values somewhere else. Parameters you use in XPath expressions. Output ports you use in declarations of input ports where you say where they came from. You declare them, assign to them, and use them. That's true of all three.
15:28:36 [Norm]
Henry: In the case of group, you declare a parameter but don't every seem to use it.
15:29:17 [Norm]
Alex: No that we've gone down this tangent; it seems like a number of people would like declare- to go away.
15:29:42 [Norm]
...At the f2f, I recall that there was an uncomfortable feeling about declare vs. use. We went around in circles and left it that way.
15:29:56 [Norm]
Henry: There are distinctions, I think we should reflect them, we don't have it quite right, I'm not in favor of removing them.
15:30:22 [Norm]
Richard: There are three things: I think it would be better to have 1 name for all three. Having 2 is bad and having 3 would be too verbose.
15:30:34 [Norm]
Alex: How many people on this call would prefer to drop declare-?
15:30:46 [Norm]
Richard: Is there any place where it would cause ambiguity?
15:31:20 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:31:20 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, PGrosso, Alessandro_Vernet, Alex_Milowski, Rui, Andrew, MoZ, richard, Murray_Maloney, Ht, MSM
15:32:12 [Norm]
Murray: Henry voiced his concern. As I recall Paul was the other person.
15:32:18 [Norm]
Paul: Which distinction?
15:33:10 [Norm]
Murray: I proposed an input element everywhere, things spread out, and when we contracted it back, that distinction remained.
15:33:27 [Norm]
Henry: I favor the distinction being preserved.
15:34:05 [Norm]
Straw poll: who's in favor of dropping the "declare-" prefix throughout.
15:35:03 [Zakim]
-MoZ
15:35:14 [MoZ]
I was saying yes
15:35:52 [Norm]
Results: 8 in favor, 1 against, and 2 abstentions.
15:36:38 [Norm]
Paul: Why have things changed?
15:37:01 [Zakim]
+??P7
15:37:13 [Norm]
Norm: I think we struggled with the model at the f2f; many of us there were unhappy with the distinction. The best I can say is, time has passed.
15:37:18 [MoZ]
Zakim, ? is me
15:37:20 [Zakim]
+MoZ; got it
15:37:27 [Norm]
Henry: I think part of the issue was that there were a lot of other alternatives on the table at the f2f.
15:37:53 [Norm]
We wonder what Jenni's position is? Norm recalls her being in favor of dropping the distinction.
15:38:22 [Norm]
Norm: I propose to produce a branch draft that looses the distinction and give folks a chance to see how it feels "in situ" as it were.
15:38:29 [Norm]
s/looses/loses/
15:39:03 [Norm]
ACTION: A-40-04: Norm to produce a draft that loses the distinction (and a diff)
15:39:16 [MoZ]
MSM, what ?
15:40:21 [Norm]
Murray: Can we discuss GRDDL at the end?
15:40:23 [Norm]
Norm: Ye.
15:40:26 [Norm]
s/Ye./Yes./
15:40:45 [Norm]
Topic: GRDDL
15:41:13 [Norm]
Murray: I think there's some confusion based on the responses I've been getting.
15:41:19 [Norm]
Murray: I'm asking about something not related to pipelines.
15:41:42 [Norm]
Murray: An agent grabs a document and sees an GRDDL transformation. It also sees XInclude.
15:41:53 [Norm]
Murray: Should it expand the XIncludes or not?
15:42:48 [Norm]
Murray: I know we haven't talked about the other half of our charter much yet, but the GRDDL chair keeps asking me this quesiton.
15:42:49 [Norm]
s/quesiton/question/
15:43:03 [Norm]
Murray: Do we have anything to say.
15:44:07 [Norm]
Norm: I agree it's in our charter, so from a process point of view, I think the answer is "wait, we'll get to that as soon as we can".
15:44:20 [Norm]
Norm: I think the spec should answer the question.
15:44:35 [Norm]
Murray: The problem is that the spec isn't written in terms of agents, only in terms of encoding.
15:44:57 [Norm]
Alex: Murray, how is this any different than someone saying that my transformation relies on the PSVI?
15:45:15 [Norm]
...That's a presupposition of XML Schema validation.
15:45:24 [MSM]
q+ to ask whether the right way to rephrase Norm's suggestion is "they say whether the GRDDL transformation gives the RDF meaning of the document as it exists or of the document produced as the result of applying XInclude to the document"
15:46:43 [MSM]
q?
15:47:08 [Norm]
Henry: I think the answer is clear: in the absense of an answer about the default pipeline, there is no basis for GRDDL to take that question on.
15:48:42 [Norm]
ack msm
15:48:42 [Zakim]
MSM, you wanted to ask whether the right way to rephrase Norm's suggestion is "they say whether the GRDDL transformation gives the RDF meaning of the document as it exists or of
15:48:45 [Zakim]
... the document produced as the result of applying XInclude to the document"
15:49:26 [Norm]
Michael: I understood Murray to say that Norm's answer is hard because the spec isn't written to talk about processors.
15:49:45 [Norm]
...I'm assuming that the spec says something like "the pointer to the GRDDL transformation is a pointer to a transformation that gives an RDF encoding of the meaning of this document"
15:51:07 [Norm]
...I think Norm's suggestion can be translated: "Does that transformation give the meaning of that document as it stands or the meaning of the document that can be obtained from the application of XInclude to this one"
15:51:43 [Norm]
Michael: I'm with Norm in thinking you might want it one way or another, but I'm with Henry about the simplest thing that could be said.
15:51:51 [Norm]
Murray: What is the document as it stands?
15:52:14 [Norm]
Michael: If we're talking about any case where serialization/infoset isn't in the normal many-to-one relationship, that would need to be stated.
15:52:45 [ht]
Murray: see http://dret.net/projects/xipr/ (a promissory note)
15:53:02 [Norm]
Richard: If you talk about the Infoset of the document, it seems to me that are referring to the output of the parser (no other processing).
15:53:38 [Norm]
Murray: In my mind, what you get after XInclude is part of the meaning of the document.
15:53:50 [Norm]
Alex: If you start with "the document as it stands" then when we answer part 2 of our charter, then you can say that "the document as it stands" is the output from that default processing.
15:54:21 [MSM]
Murray, I would agree with you if you were talking about entity expansion. But the example we are talking about is XInclude, which gets used by people who want to be able to have, and work with, two different ESISes.
15:54:58 [Norm]
Topic: Syntactic irregularity of choose
15:55:14 [Norm]
Straw poll: does the syntactic irregularity of chooes/when bother you?
15:55:30 [Norm]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:55:30 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Norm, PGrosso, Alessandro_Vernet, Alex_Milowski, Rui, Andrew, richard, Murray_Maloney, Ht, MSM, MoZ
15:57:36 [Norm]
Results: 5 yes, 1 no, and 4 abstain
15:57:59 [Norm]
Norm: useful information.
15:58:06 [Norm]
Topic: Any other business
15:58:16 [Norm]
None.
15:58:35 [Norm]
Adjourned
15:58:38 [Zakim]
-Ht
15:58:46 [Zakim]
-PGrosso
15:58:47 [Zakim]
-Murray_Maloney
15:58:47 [Zakim]
-Andrew
15:58:48 [Zakim]
-richard
15:58:48 [Zakim]
-Alessandro_Vernet
15:58:49 [Zakim]
-Norm
15:58:50 [Zakim]
-Rui
15:58:51 [Zakim]
-Alex_Milowski
15:58:51 [PGrosso]
PGrosso has left #xproc
15:58:54 [Norm]
rrsagent, please make logs world-visible
15:58:57 [Zakim]
-MSM
15:59:03 [Zakim]
-MoZ
15:59:05 [Zakim]
XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
15:59:06 [Zakim]
Attendees were Norm, PGrosso, Alex_Milowski, Alessandro_Vernet, [IPcaller], MoZ, Andrew, Rui, richard, Murray_Maloney, Ht, MSM
15:59:07 [Norm]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
15:59:07 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/10/19-xproc-minutes.html Norm
15:59:11 [Norm]
zakim, bye
15:59:11 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #xproc
15:59:13 [Norm]
rrsagent, bye
15:59:13 [RRSAgent]
I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/19-xproc-actions.rdf :
15:59:13 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: A-40-01 Richard to construct some use cases for computed parameters. [1]
15:59:13 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/19-xproc-irc#T15-12-09
15:59:13 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: A-40-02 Norm to construct some use cases for computed parameters. [2]
15:59:13 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/19-xproc-irc#T15-12-19
15:59:13 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: A-40-03 Norm to update the language document to describe computed parameters [3]
15:59:13 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/19-xproc-irc#T15-19-48
15:59:13 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: A-40-04: Norm to produce a draft that loses the distinction (and a diff) [4]
15:59:13 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/19-xproc-irc#T15-39-03