IRC log of databinding on 2008-03-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:02:13 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #databinding
15:02:13 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:02:15 [trackbot-ng]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:02:15 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #databinding
15:02:17 [trackbot-ng]
Zakim, this will be DBWG
15:02:17 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot-ng, I see WS_DBWG()10:00AM already started
15:02:18 [trackbot-ng]
Meeting: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Working Group Teleconference
15:02:18 [trackbot-ng]
Date: 11 March 2008
15:02:38 [Zakim]
15:03:23 [pauld]
zakim, code?
15:03:31 [pauld]
zakim, code?
15:03:38 [Zakim]
the conference code is 3294 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), pauld
15:03:50 [Zakim]
the conference code is 3294 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), pauld
15:04:47 [pauld]
yves, getting "conference is restricted"
15:05:25 [Yves]
hum, try to wait for an operator, then
15:05:30 [gcowe]
i seem to be on conference ok, but only me!
15:05:40 [Yves]
telcon ended (as we are one hour late)
15:05:46 [Zakim]
+ +0791888aaaa
15:06:03 [pauld]
zakim, aaaa is me
15:06:03 [Zakim]
+pauld; got it
15:08:13 [pauld]
scribe: pauld
15:08:42 [pauld]
chair: pauld
15:08:58 [pauld]
pauld: we need to renew the charter, runs out end of this month
15:09:30 [pauld]
yves: we need to have a document published, that'll help
15:10:43 [JonC]
JonC has joined #databinding
15:11:07 [JonC]
15:11:30 [JonC]
Cannot join conference call...
15:11:59 [pauld]
pauld: we need to list the changes from the previous Last Call publication
15:16:13 [pauld]
15:16:24 [pauld]
Topic: Publication of Basic Patterns
15:18:50 [pauld]
gcowe: "elementfinal" isn't valid, and is "Basic", should be removed
15:18:52 [pauld]
15:19:07 [pauld]
pauld: testing worked?
15:19:16 [pauld]
gcowe: example was missing
15:19:26 [pauld]
pauld: doubly sure we should remove it
15:20:00 [pauld]
pauld: OK so "ElementFinal" is removed as a pattern
15:20:24 [pauld]
15:20:40 [gcowe]
elementfixed was a new advanced pattern added
15:20:50 [Zakim]
+ +0800328aabb
15:21:13 [pauld]
zakim, aabb is Jonc
15:21:13 [Zakim]
+Jonc; got it
15:22:34 [pauld]
pauld: elementfixed accepted as an advaced
15:25:53 [pauld]
pauld: I'll produce a list of differences
15:26:49 [pauld]
XML Schema WG send comments:
15:27:02 [pauld]
pauld: most look reasonable
15:29:48 [pauld]
pauld: most look like they apply to spec as it stands
15:32:15 [pauld]
pauld: suggest I raise these as LC issues, publish this week on the list and we OK at a meeting next tuesday
15:32:50 [pauld]
Topic: Collection and Schema Annotation
15:39:31 [Yves]
15:40:39 [pauld]
pauld: have a technique for annotation schema, should have it tonight
15:40:41 [pauld]
15:40:45 [pauld]
15:41:32 [pauld]
$ cvs co -r1.67 patterns.xml
15:43:13 [pauld]
last call patterns:
15:43:20 [pauld]
15:44:11 [pauld]
need to record list of patterns added and removed since our last, last call
15:44:49 [pauld]
gcowe: will look at the differences
15:45:44 [pauld]
Topic: lc-xsd-1
15:45:57 [pauld]
15:45:58 [pauld]
* References to concepts and terminology from XSD need to be made more
15:46:00 [pauld]
precise. For example, section 1.3 says "A document claiming conformance
15:46:01 [pauld]
to this specification ... MUST conform to the [XML Schema 1.0
15:46:03 [pauld]
Recommendation]", but XSD provides no conformance requirements for
15:46:04 [pauld]
"documents" in general. It would be more appropriate to say that "A
15:46:06 [pauld]
document claiming conformance to this specification ... MUST be a 'schema
15:46:07 [pauld]
document' [2], as defined in [XML Schema 1.0 Recommendation], and MUST
15:46:10 [pauld]
therefore meet the "Constraints on the representation of schema components
15:46:10 [pauld]
in XML" [3] provided therein." Actually, there's a further mismatch on
15:46:12 [pauld]
infosets vs. serialization; see next point.
15:46:13 [pauld]
15:47:38 [pauld]
15:48:15 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: Accepted suggested text for lc-xsd-1
15:48:24 [pauld]
Topic: lc-xsd-2
15:48:42 [pauld]
15:48:44 [pauld]
* 1.3 also says that a document conforming to the databinding
15:48:45 [pauld]
specification must be a well formed XML 1.0 document; XSD defines a
15:48:47 [pauld]
schema document as an Infoset with <xs:schema> as the root element. You
15:48:48 [pauld]
should make clear whether the mismatch is intentional, and if so rewrite
15:48:50 [pauld]
the text suggested above accordingly. Otherwise, you should change to
15:48:51 [pauld]
indicate that a conforming document is infact an Infoset, consistent with
15:48:53 [pauld]
XSD. That will mean changing the many references to XML 1.0 documents
15:48:54 [pauld]
that appear throughout your draft.
15:48:56 [pauld]
15:51:41 [pauld]
pauld: we discussed this early on, I should find evidence of our discussion, but we agreed to work at the XML level, and this is an addition constraint over the XML Schema spec, and this is a part of our relationship to the WS-I BP
15:52:32 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: Rejected lc-xsd-2
15:52:42 [pauld]
Topic: lc-xsd-3
15:53:20 [pauld]
15:53:21 [pauld]
* Section 1.4 suggests that a conforming application "SHOULD be able to
15:53:23 [pauld]
process any valid [XML Schema 1.0] document.". First of all, there's some
15:53:24 [pauld]
question as to whether a SHOULD is appropriate in a conformance section.
15:53:26 [pauld]
Notwithstanding that, the reference to [XML Schema 1.0] documents is
15:53:27 [pauld]
again not strictly clear, since XSD talks about instances to be validated
15:53:29 [pauld]
as well as schema documents. We suggest a formal reference to 'schema
15:53:30 [pauld]
documents' [2] as in the first point above.
15:53:32 [pauld]
15:55:53 [pauld]
pauld: whole point of our spec is that not all implementations can swallow any documents
15:56:29 [pauld]
15:58:03 [pauld]
pauld: what would be the advantage of removing this?
15:58:21 [pauld]
yves: wouldn't impact people's reading of the document
15:59:20 [pauld]
pauld: anyone want to argue against removing:
15:59:46 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: Accept lx-xsd-3 and remove assert-AnySchema
16:00:01 [pauld]
16:00:44 [pauld]
Topic: lc-xsd-4
16:00:50 [pauld]
16:00:52 [pauld]
* Section 1.4 says that conformance requires that an implementation: "
16:00:53 [pauld]
MUST produce a data model exposing all of the [XML 1.0] element node and
16:00:55 [pauld]
attribute node content described by the originating [XML Schema 1.0]
16:00:56 [pauld]
document.", but "described by" is not a formal relation or operation
16:00:58 [pauld]
provided for in XSD. Especially in a conformance requirement, this seems
16:00:59 [pauld]
too informal.
16:01:01 [pauld]
16:02:49 [pauld]
pauld: no alternative terminology suggested. "described by" is pretty OK by me, but then I'm no spec lawyer
16:03:21 [pauld]
.. any suggestions for better suggestion?
16:03:31 [pauld]
yves: "per"
16:03:43 [pauld]
pauld: or we could define "described by"
16:04:08 [pauld]
gcowe: "constrained by"
16:05:32 [pauld]
pauld: "constrained" is used throughout the XML Schema spec
16:06:08 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: Accpet lc-xsd-4 replacing "described" with "constrained"
16:08:05 [pauld]
16:08:51 [Zakim]
16:08:53 [Zakim]
16:08:54 [Zakim]
16:08:58 [Zakim]
16:09:00 [Zakim]
WS_DBWG()10:00AM has ended
16:09:00 [pauld]
rrsagent, generate minutes
16:09:00 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pauld
16:09:02 [Zakim]
Attendees were George_Cowe, Yves, +0791888aaaa, pauld, +0800328aabb, Jonc
16:09:10 [pauld]
rrsagent, make logs public
16:33:26 [pauld]
pauld has joined #databinding
17:31:06 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #databinding
18:57:47 [pauld]
pauld has joined #databinding