08:26:14 RRSAgent has joined #databinding 08:26:14 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-databinding-irc 08:26:15 RRSAgent, make logs public 08:26:16 Zakim has joined #databinding 08:26:17 Zakim, this will be DBWG 08:26:18 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 08:26:18 Meeting: Databinding WG Teleconference 08:26:18 Date: 13 February 2007 08:26:53 scribe: pauld 08:26:58 chair: pauld 08:27:25 Topic: Administrivia 08:27:48 gcowe has joined #databinding 08:27:51 pauld has left #databinding 08:29:22 pauld has joined #databinding 09:21:59 gcowe: would like to change the Siebel comment in the minutes 09:22:02 pauld: OK! 09:22:15 Topic: Test Suite 09:22:26 pauld: we need to publish our reports 09:22:36 plan to publish detected patterns 09:22:52 yves: been working with XMLUnit 09:23:01 discussion of Yves report 09:23:38 pauld: need a rollup, need to fix log namespace for nonamespace schemas, but looks good! 09:24:25 pauld: Yves will work on the rollup, pauld will work on detecting patterns in the wild jon and george to battle with toolkits 09:24:46 pauld: OK today we answer comments, rest of the meeting we work on the reports 09:24:49 BREAK 10:11:12 JonC has joined #databinding 10:16:19 Topic: c-erh-1 : typo "casue" 10:16:32 Jonc: actually a type in "Advanced" 10:16:40 pauld: i seem to have fixed it 10:16:59 pauld: how do I work EXIT? Shoot me. Shoot me now! 10:17:07 pauld: accepted! 10:17:33 Topic: lc-i18n-1 : BOM link to Unicode FAQ 10:19:01 pauld: do we have any tests for BOM? 10:19:20 ACTION: pdowney to write BOM examples for the testsuite 10:19:21 Created ACTION-104 - Write BOM examples for the testsuite [on Paul Downey - due 2007-02-20]. 10:19:53 pauld: they want us to link to http://www.unicode.org/unicode/faq/utf_bom.html#BOM 10:20:08 paul: informative reference? 10:20:24 pauld: any objections? 10:20:58 ACTION: pdowney to add informative reference for BOM link to Unicode FAQ 10:20:58 Created ACTION-105 - Add informative reference for BOM link to Unicode FAQ [on Paul Downey - due 2007-02-20]. 10:21:19 Topic: lc-i18n-2 : Working with Time Zones 10:21:59 pauld: want to link to http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-timezone-20051013/ 10:23:34 pauld: looks like goodness 10:23:58 ACTION: pdowney to add reference to http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-timezone-20051013/ 10:23:59 Created ACTION-106 - Add reference to http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-timezone-20051013/ [on Paul Downey - due 2007-02-20]. 10:24:23 Topic: c-i18n-3: language type to reference BCP47 10:27:30 reference comes from XML Schema, our spec is all boilerplate here 10:28:33 ACTION: pdowney to add reference to BCP47 10:28:34 Created ACTION-107 - Add reference to BCP47 [on Paul Downey - due 2007-02-20]. 10:29:14 Topic: lc-drkm-1: XPath 2.0 and node-set 10:29:26 pauld: used node-set but that's XPath 1.0 10:30:41 pauld: Priscilla raised the same comment, and I trust both to be correct, however node-set is in common usage. Sequence implies order, but we don't care about order 10:31:16 pauld: let's park this until Priscilla joins us 10:31:30 Topic: lc-psd-1: WS-I Basic Profile compliant schema import 10:33:05 pauld: this pattern should really be Basic, is this a significant change? 10:33:15 gcowe: I use this pattern quite a bit 10:33:28 pauld: only way you can import a schema and be BP compliant 10:33:49 pauld: easy to write a constrained XPath for this commonly used pattern 10:34:00 any objections to adding this to Basic? 10:34:30 ACTION: pauld to add a Basic Pattern for BP compliant schema import 10:34:30 Sorry, couldn't find user - pauld 10:35:20 RESOLUTION: close lc-psd-1 as accepted 10:35:59 Topic: c-jmarsh-1: XPath Expressions Too Complex? 10:36:13 pauld: too many notes, your royal highness ;-) 10:36:55 pauld: Jonathan thinks XPath is complex, wonder how he'll like moving to the terminology as well 10:37:19 pauld: I agree, in cases such as this we can simplify the expressions 10:38:33 pauld: @targetNamespace is not the same as .[@targetNamespace]/ (., @targetNamespace) since that returns two nodes 10:39:06 jonc: is he asking us not to use this style where not needed? 10:39:20 pauld: there are other XPaths which can be simplified 10:40:30 jonc: will review the XPaths to simplify 10:40:56 pauld: I quite like them all being the same style, would some introduction text help? 10:43:41 pauld: but for this pattern, it is necessary to match xs:schema and targetNamesapce because we don't allow xs:schema without a targetNamespace! 10:44:29 ACTION: jcalladi to review XPaths for unnecessary nodes being matched 10:44:29 Created ACTION-108 - Review XPaths for unnecessary nodes being matched [on Jonathan Calladine - due 2007-02-20]. 10:45:20 pauld: will reject this comment for @targetNamespace, but accept the thrust which is to simplify the patterns where possible 10:45:45 RESOLUTION: close c-jmarsh-1 as rejected 10:46:03 Topic: lc-jmarsh-2: Schema Version Attribute 10:46:19 Zakim has left #databinding 10:46:22 pauld: how does it help with databinding? 10:46:32 Zakim has joined #databinding 10:47:18 jonc: assumption is we're encouraging it, we're just saying it's allowed 10:47:37 pauld: we allowed it because it's mostly harmless, tools can ignore it 10:47:59 pauld: can we flag patterns as being noise 10:48:23 gcowe: would we leave it out or move it to Advanced? 10:48:45 jonc: but it's not Advanced under our criteria of doesn't fail with tools 10:49:12 first do no harm.... 10:49:18 RESOLUTION: close lc-jmarsh-2 as rejected, subject to tools working with the pattern 10:49:46 Topic: lc-jmarsh-3: Duplicate Listing 10:51:22 pauld: thinks the example is demonstrating two uses of annotation, should be split 10:52:19 pauld: do we want an ElementDocumentationElement and a SchemaDocumentationElement, etc, etc? 10:53:00 pauld: is there value in such fine-grained patterns? 10:53:18 gcowe: it's mostly ignored by tools anyway 10:54:26 pauld: we could go the other way and make the example have ComplexType/xs:annotation SimpleType/xs:annotation, etc to be clear, but then that would be difficult if we moved SimpleType to Advanced at some point 10:54:44 jonc: one pattern seems good enough 10:55:11 pauld: it's confusing, maybe we need another test case, but simplify the example in the spec 10:56:14 pauld: we need to test it before splitting the pattern 10:56:16 ACTION: gcowe: to split DocumentationElement example into more than one example / testcase 10:56:16 Sorry, couldn't find user - gcowe: 10:57:03 !rehash 10:58:33 RESOLUTION: accept lc-jmarsh-3 10:59:01 Topic: lc-jmarsh-4: Value of @mixed="false" etc 11:05:12 I think we recognise the feeling here that it is the lack of problematic patterns that is of interest 11:05:44 but it is not what the basic patterns document is really about 11:05:52 pauld: the pattern is Basic if tools swallow it without barfing 11:07:21 pauld: is the @mixed!='true' really saying //@mixed!='true' 11:08:19 Jonc: it's a slippery slope 11:08:49 pauld: seen schemas which generate this and other defaults explicitly and interoperate 11:09:19 RESOLUTION: lc-jmarsh-4 rejected 11:09:43 pauld: it's like ROOM 101 11:10:13 Topic: lc-jmarsh-5: Grouping of R2800 and R2112 11:12:43 pauld: puzzled - R2112 is something we allow, but BP doesn't whereas R2800 is vice-versa 11:12:50 pauld: let 11:13:23 s/let/let's reject it and get Jonathan to explain why, he is a BP expert after all!/ 11:13:54 RESOLUTION: lc-jmarsh-5 rejected 11:14:57 Topic: lc-Microsoft-1: Support for Attributes 11:18:19 jonc: we're about what works with toolkits now, not what might be removed in the future 11:19:09 gcowe: we find attributes useful, certainly we don't want to move away from them 11:19:23 also think that we have never been in the business of setting the bar so very low 11:19:48 pauld: I'd be sympathetic if there was a "state of the art" toolkit which didn't handle them. 11:20:29 pauld: under our way of working, attributes are fine, but I think it's an interesting comment, and a warning things may be more constrained 11:21:08 pauld: I'd like to be able to round-trip to JSON without an infoset, and such a constraint would help greatly 11:21:35 we have identified issues with attributes and marked as advanced this is the way forward not removing support for them entirely 11:21:52 pauld: our testing will help here 11:22:43 pauld: nothing to stop Microsoft publishing their own "Very Basic" document using our patterns, or a few of them, anyway 11:23:20 pauld: actually that's something we'd encourage, vendors being more explicit about which patterns are or are not supported 11:23:40 RESOLUTION: lc-Microsoft-1 rejected 11:24:07 Topic: lc-Microsoft-2: Element References 11:24:43 pauld: worries me because I use it to wrap example elements into the test suite WSDL 11:24:53 jonc: all our schemas contain them 11:25:35 pauld: I think it's a valid constraint though, and there are no natural equivalent in most modern programming languages (C pointers anyone?) 11:25:55 pauld: well, not to a type, that is 11:26:01 but what toolkit fails with them? 11:26:42 pauld: exactly, that's our criteria 11:28:14 discussion of mapping global elements to programming languages 11:29:09 if a sequence contains elements from a different namespace, what's the mapping to a C£/Java class? 11:29:23 pauld: .NET annotations cope with this, no? 11:30:00 pauld: do we need a test case for crossing namespaces, or tighten the pattern to just within the same namespace? 11:30:38 pauld: nervous of defining such patterns as they need a component model to span schemas 11:31:43 gcowe: do we need an example of spanning multiple namespaces? 11:33:26 pauld: propose we split this pattern to "within the same schema document" and "across schemas" not namespaces, and then have an example to test this 11:33:50 pauld: OK, we'll keep this open, subject to testing 11:34:14 ACTION: pdowney to split ElementReference into two patterns 11:34:14 Created ACTION-110 - Split ElementReference into two patterns [on Paul Downey - due 2007-02-20]. 11:34:26 s/£/#/ 11:35:26 Topic: lc-Microsoft-3: Nested Sequences and sequences other than minOccurs=maxOccurs=1 11:38:23 pauld: I think they're being helpful, are we being too fine-grained here? 11:38:40 s/being too/too/ 11:39:21 gcowe: it's complexity that's needed 11:41:30 jonc: is maxOccurs=1 a typeo 11:41:52 gcowe: think this is pushing wrapped for repeated elements 11:42:22 .. modelling tools don't always generate wrapped arrays 11:42:39 jonc: we may end up making bare arrays advanced subject to testing 11:42:56 pauld: let's hold off on this subject to testing 11:43:52 Topic: lc-Microsoft-4: schemaLocation 11:44:15 pauld: big +1 to that 11:44:48 RESOLUTION: lc-Microsoft-4 accepted 11:45:12 ACTION: pdowney to add advice that schemaLocation is a hint 11:45:12 Created ACTION-111 - Add advice that schemaLocation is a hint [on Paul Downey - due 2007-02-20]. 11:45:53 Topic: lc-Microsoft-5: maxOccurs=finite 11:46:21 pauld: I agree with the comment! 11:46:36 gcowe: we need this for our schemas 11:47:04 jonc: our criteria is if tools don't reject it it's basic 11:47:12 pauld: zero, one, many 11:47:46 pauld: few tools do validation, or build an array[3] anymore, well 'C' might 11:48:26 pauld: hold this open subject to testing 11:49:28 Topic: lc-Microsoft-6: Null enumerations 11:50:38 this came from an X.694 inspired contribution 11:51:02 pauld: it's valid schema, comment asks if it's useful 11:51:49 do we have to justify use of patterns in the spec? 11:52:34 .. it is listed as a " 11:52:47 .. way of saying a value is Null 11:52:57 .. always Null in X.694 11:53:19 pauld: it is fairly Zen though, sound of no data passing 11:53:55 pauld: what does it mean to accept this comment 11:54:05 s/ent/ent?/ 11:55:34 pauld: will write back and explain the origin, will remain in the spec subject to testing, but i suspect one tool at least doesn't support it, so it's toast 11:55:53 advanced toast anyway 11:56:11 RESOLUTION: lc-Microsoft-6 accpeted 11:56:22 s/accpeted/accepted/ 11:56:26 LUNCH! 11:56:37 RRSAgent, generate minutes 11:56:37 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-databinding-minutes.html pauld 11:56:49 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:04:11 Zakim has left #databinding 13:36:07 Zakim has joined #databinding 13:38:41 Topic: lc-Microsoft-7: Mixing elements maxOccurs=1 and maxOccurs>1 ... 13:38:51 Jonc: bare arrays 13:38:52 pauld: 13:39:21 s/pauld:/pauld: "Bare arrays do not support the distinction between null arrays and empty arrays" 13:39:35 .. seems like a valid comment from a code-first POV 13:39:52 .. you can't send a null array with a bare array 13:40:33 pauld: we've decided not to offer advice on chosing a pattern, is this a special case? 13:41:16 also valid comment from a efficiency/productivity POV e.g. XSLT 13:41:37 pauld: i don't understand the efficiency comment 13:41:54 jonc: tools don't bail on this 13:42:07 pauld: sounds like a "Design Consideration" 13:43:31 pauld: maybe the XSLT comment referds to A* B* C* A* 13:44:34 pauld: seems like I might elect not to use this pattern, but does that mean that schemas which exhibit this pattern are rejected by tools? 13:45:16 pauld: how strongly do people feel about this? Do we need more information, how widely used is the pattern? 13:45:40 gcowe: we use it 13:45:47 sounds more like best practice recommendation ??? 13:45:51 pauld: and you're a member of the WG! 13:48:45 pauld: it's in our spec, to lose it we have to demonstrate lack of support. To accept the comment we have to change the way we work. I might not like this pattern but if it works with tools and is used in Schemas in the wild, then it's basic. 13:49:46 jonc: we're going to continue using wrapped as our default, but don't see any reason to remove as yet 13:50:15 pauld: let's keep it open, subject to testing 13:50:52 Topic: c-Microsoft-8: Mixing elements maxOccurs=1 and maxOccurs>1 in the same inheritance chain 13:51:02 s/c-Mi/lc-Mi/ 13:51:57 pauld: a challenge to write an XPath for this across multiple schema documents, but is the comment valid? 13:52:38 pauld: in some ways depends upon lc-Microsoft-7 13:52:53 pauld: do we have a test case? 13:53:26 ACTION: gcowe to write a test case for lc-Microsoft-7 13:53:27 Created ACTION-112 - Write a test case for lc-Microsoft-7 [on George Cowe - due 2007-02-20]. 13:54:51 gcowe: action is for lc-Microsoft-8, no? 13:54:57 pauld: d'oh! 13:56:08 Topic: Report Bashing 13:56:25 gcowe: patterns detection stylesheet, 13:58:14 gcowe: can we reference a stylesheet for the output? 13:58:27 pauld: prefer to do that server side 13:59:00 ACTION: ylafon to make patteerns detection service run stylesheet 13:59:01 Created ACTION-113 - Make patteerns detection service run stylesheet [on Yves Lafon - due 2007-02-20]. 13:59:18 s/Report Bashing/Pattern Detection Service/ 13:59:42 gcowe: I have a version which works with file upload and URI 14:00:25 yves: can we provide the source / war file for people wanting to run this for themselves 14:00:30 gcoew: that's fine 14:00:41 s/gcoew/gcowe/ 14:01:13 pauld: what about the "freshness" of the patterns.xml file used, where does it come from? 14:01:54 ylafon: service runs from a copy of the stylesheet 14:02:08 pauld: how do we get changes propogated? 14:03:35 pauld: can we put the source code war file rollup into the WG CVS? 14:04:29 gcowe: we could make the service pickup the live version, and make that configurable 14:05:11 ACTION: gcowe to make the detection service pick up the live stylesheet, configurably 14:05:11 Created ACTION-114 - Make the detection service pick up the live stylesheet, configurably [on George Cowe - due 2007-02-20]. 14:06:01 ACTION: gcowe to put patterns detection source code into WG CVS 14:06:01 Created ACTION-115 - Put patterns detection source code into WG CVS [on George Cowe - due 2007-02-20]. 14:06:28 pauld: when do we go live / announce the service? 14:07:41 yves: not tied to publication of our documents 14:08:14 pauld: plan to announce it with publication of our reports 14:09:57 pauld: do we conisder bundling WS-I BP in our service? 14:10:25 s/conisder/consider/ 14:10:40 TBD 14:11:17 Topic: Testing Workshop 14:11:37 WG looks at Axis and the testsuite 14:57:30 pwalmsley has joined #databinding 15:00:29 zakim, this will be schema 15:00:29 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, pauld 15:01:13 zakim, teleconferences? 15:01:15 I don't understand your question, pauld. 15:01:33 trackbot, start telcon 15:01:35 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:01:37 Zakim, this will be DBWG 15:01:38 ok, trackbot; I see WS_DBWG()10:00AM scheduled to start now 15:01:38 Meeting: Databinding WG Teleconference 15:01:38 Date: 13 February 2007 15:02:18 zakim, code? 15:02:21 the conference code is 3294 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), pauld 15:03:02 WS_DBWG()10:00AM has now started 15:03:09 +[Sophia] 15:03:23 Meeting: Databinding F2F (Tuesday) 15:03:31 + +1.231.218.aaaa 15:03:59 zakim, aaaa is pwalmsley 15:03:59 +pwalmsley; got it 15:04:15 Topic: lc-pwalmsley-1: Document or Element Node 15:04:57 RESOLUTION: lc-pwalmsley-1 accpeted 15:05:14 s/accpe/accep/ 15:05:38 pwalmsley: ok with me! 15:05:52 ACTION: pdowney to edit lc-pwalmsley-1 15:05:53 Created ACTION-117 - Edit lc-pwalmsley-1 [on Paul Downey - due 2007-02-20]. 15:06:23 Topic: lc-pwalmsley-2: "node-set" should be "sequence" 15:07:23 pwalmsley: term node-set isn't used in XPath, is order significant 15:07:28 pauld: no 15:07:57 RESOLUTION: lc-pwalmsley-2 accepted 15:08:12 ACTION: pdowney to edit lc-pwalmsley-2 15:08:12 Created ACTION-118 - Edit lc-pwalmsley-2 [on Paul Downey - due 2007-02-20]. 15:08:39 pauld: also closes lc-drkm-1: XPath 2.0 and node-set ? 15:09:08 Topic: lc-pwalmsley-3: QualifiedLocalElements 15:09:22 pwalmsley: example doesn't have any elements 15:11:10 http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-patterns/#pattern-QualifiedLocalElements 15:11:19 name of the pattern is misleading? 15:11:40 pwalmsley: don't feel strongly, we can just leave it 15:12:37 pauld: we have an assertion: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-patterns/#assert-QualifiedLocalElements-summary 15:13:29 RESOLUTION: lc-pwalmsley-3 rejected 15:13:38 pwalmsley: OK with this 15:14:30 Topic: lc-pwalmsley-5: ElementFinal 15:15:22 RESOLUTION: accept lc-pwalmsley-5 15:15:32 pwalmsley: OK with this 15:16:01 Topic: lc-pwalmsley-6: ImportTypesNamespace 15:17:50 pwalmsley: might be invalid use of schema 15:19:19 pauld: trying to capture a common pattern used within WSDL 15:20:43 pauld: maybe we could add another clause to capture self reference in (@namespace = ../xs:schema/@targetNamespace)] 15:20:56 pwalmsley: that would be an invalid schema 15:21:20 RESOLUTION: rejected lc-pwalmsley-6 15:21:28 pwalmsley: I'm OK with that 15:22:32 Topic: lc-pwalmsley-7: GlobalElement and GlobalAttribute 15:22:42 pauld: exists not to fire the catchall 15:22:52 pwalmsley: might not be necessary 15:23:42 ./xs:element[@name and @type and contains(@type, ':')]/ (., @name, @type) 15:24:03 http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xmlschema-patterns-20061122/#group-GlobalElement 15:25:22 pauld: simplifying is goodness 15:26:07 ACTION: pdowney to remove @name and @type from GlobalAttribute and GlobalElement 15:26:08 Created ACTION-119 - Remove @name and @type from GlobalAttribute and GlobalElement [on Paul Downey - due 2007-02-20]. 15:26:27 RESOLUTION: accept lc-pwalmsley-7 15:26:39 pwalmsley: OK with that! 15:26:59 Topic: lc-pwalmsley-8: @type colon 15:27:36 pwalmsley: a client also encountered this issue, so happy to withdraw the comment 15:27:45 RESOLUTION: lc-pwalmsley-8 rejected 15:28:16 Topic: lc-pwalmsley-9: GlobalElementSequence 15:28:38 RESOLUTION: accepted lc-pwalmsley-9 15:28:58 pwalmsley: I'm OK with that! 15:29:15 Topic: lc-pwalmsley-10: ElementMaxOccursFinite 15:29:32 RESOLUTION: rejected lc-pwalmsley-10 15:29:42 pwalmsley: I'm OK, it's incorrect 15:29:59 .//xs:element[@maxOccurs != ('0','1','unbounded')] 15:31:20 pwalmsley: other comment in the mail on global element sequence - please ignore 15:31:47 s/rejected lc-pwalmsley-10/accepted lc-pwalmsley-10/ 15:32:09 Topic: lc-pwalmsley-11: ElementEmptySequence @name 15:32:17 pauld: similar issue 15:32:32 RESOLUTION: accept lc-pwalmsley-11 15:33:04 Tooic: lc-pwalmsley-12: ElementEmptySequence not(node()) 15:33:12 s/Tooic/Topic/ 15:34:29 pauld: not (* except xs:annotation) seems good 15:34:56 RESOLUTION: accept lc-pwalmsley-12 15:35:37 Topic: lc-pwalmsley-13, lc-pwalmsley-14: 15:35:46 pauld: we've been here before! 15:35:57 analogous to 11 and 12 15:36:09 RESOLUTION: accept lc-pwalmsley-13, lc-pwalmsley-14 15:36:31 Topic: lc-pwalmsley-15: Global SimpleType Declarations 15:36:53 pwalmsley: it's editorial, wording 15:37:08 RESOLUTION: accept lc-pwalmsley-15 15:37:25 Topic: lc-pwalmsley-16: GlobalSimpleType and GlobalComplexType 15:37:31 pwalmsley: same again! 15:37:43 RESOLUTION: accept lc-pwalmsley-16 15:38:07 Topic: lc-pwalmsley-17: StringEnumerationType 15:38:16 withdrawn 15:38:23 pwalmsley: withdraw that one, cathcall picks it up 15:38:32 RESOLUTION: lc-pwalmsley-17 rejected 15:40:28 pwalmsley: I'm OK with all the resolutions! 15:41:17 RRSAgent, generate minutes 15:41:17 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-databinding-minutes.html pauld 15:42:46 -pwalmsley 15:42:51 -[Sophia] 15:42:52 WS_DBWG()10:00AM has ended 15:42:54 Attendees were [Sophia], +1.231.218.aaaa, pwalmsley 15:43:06 pauld: thanks Priscilla, much valued comments! 16:31:27 pauld has joined #databinding 16:32:36 Yves has joined #databinding 16:36:53 pauld has left #databinding 17:09:52 Zakim has left #databinding