IRC log of databinding on 2008-03-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:58:00 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #databinding
14:58:00 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:58:02 [trackbot-ng]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:58:02 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #databinding
14:58:04 [pauld]
zakim, code?
14:58:04 [Zakim]
sorry, pauld, I don't know what conference this is
14:58:04 [trackbot-ng]
Zakim, this will be DBWG
14:58:05 [trackbot-ng]
Meeting: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Working Group Teleconference
14:58:05 [trackbot-ng]
Date: 18 March 2008
14:58:05 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot-ng, I see WS_DBWG()10:00AM already started
14:58:08 [pauld]
zakim, code?
14:58:10 [Zakim]
the conference code is 3294 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), pauld
14:58:22 [Zakim]
+ +0791888aaaa
14:58:27 [pauld]
chair: pauld
14:58:42 [pauld]
zakim, aaaa
14:58:42 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'aaaa', pauld
14:58:52 [pauld]
zakim, aaaa is me
14:59:04 [Zakim]
+pauld; got it
14:59:16 [pauld]
zakim, who is on the phone?
14:59:18 [Zakim]
On the phone I see George_Cowe, pauld
14:59:38 [Zakim]
15:01:49 [pauld]
Topic: Detection
15:04:11 [pauld]
pauld: built annotation
15:04:45 [JonC]
JonC has joined #databinding
15:05:01 [pauld]
.. see the examples and collection pages
15:05:13 [pauld]
gcowe: will look at optionally adding it to the service
15:06:06 [pauld]
minutes from 2008-3-11 teleconference 2008-2-19 teleconference approved
15:06:34 [pauld]
15:09:20 [pauld]
Topic: ISSUE-2: test suite
15:09:40 [pauld]
gcowe: the XBinder guys picked up an old copy of the testsuite and sent results
15:09:44 [pauld]
pauld: cool!
15:10:05 [pauld]
gcowe: we've added a load more tests, so I sent them a new copy
15:10:17 [Zakim]
15:10:17 [pauld]
pauld: that's great. thx!
15:10:56 [pauld]
zakim, +johnc is really jonc
15:10:56 [Zakim]
sorry, pauld, I do not recognize a party named '+johnc'
15:11:03 [pauld]
zakim, johnc is really jonc
15:11:06 [Zakim]
+jonc; got it
15:12:00 [pauld]
pauld: collection is now checked in with annotation!
15:12:27 [pauld]
pauld: what's next for the test suite?
15:13:07 [pauld]
gcowe: not a lot, we've run the tools we can, half the toolkits missing, Adrian had the ability to run them
15:13:23 [pauld]
pauld: but for basic, how do we stand?
15:13:55 [gcowe]
15:16:03 [pauld]
pauld: I can rerun SOAP4R and ZSI, can someone help with WCF
15:16:14 [Yves]
I am doing gsoap c and c++
15:18:14 [pauld]
Topic: Charter Renewal?
15:18:59 [pauld]
pauld: dependent on publishing Last Call documents
15:19:19 [pauld]
yves: we should be able to ask for another six months
15:20:22 [pauld]
Topic: Status of Basic Patterns
15:20:48 [pauld]
pauld: thanks George for the work on differencing
15:21:48 [pauld]
.. status section needs updating further
15:23:14 [pauld]
Topic: Last Call comments from Schema WG
15:23:16 [pauld]
15:24:18 [pauld]
Topic: lc-xsd-5
15:24:30 [pauld]
15:24:32 [pauld]
* Schema documents vs. schemas: Following up on the point above, there are
15:24:33 [pauld]
schema documents that do not stand on their own in defining a schema
15:24:35 [pauld]
that's useful for validation. For example, if a schema document merely
15:24:36 [pauld]
defines a complext Type T as being derived by extension from type B with
15:24:38 [pauld]
attribute A, then you don't really know what the type is until you find
15:24:39 [pauld]
the base type B, and that may well be in a different schema document.
15:24:41 [pauld]
Maybe there is element content in effective type T. If there is an
15:24:42 [pauld]
element E declared of type T, then what does the requirement to "[expose]
15:24:44 [pauld]
all of the [XML 1.0] element node and attribute node content described by
15:24:45 [pauld]
the originating [XML Schema 1.0] document" mean? The problem is that it's
15:24:47 [pauld]
not really schema documents that directly call for or don't call for
15:24:48 [pauld]
content in documents to be validated. Schema documents contribute to the
15:24:50 [pauld]
construction of a schema (formally defined at [4]), which in turn contains
15:24:51 [pauld]
element declarations, etc. that can be used to require or allow content
15:24:53 [pauld]
in documents to be validated. >>It seems that some serious thought is
15:24:54 [pauld]
needed as to whether it's schema documents or schemas that would conform
15:24:56 [pauld]
to the databinding specification.<< In any case, referring to the
15:24:57 [pauld]
element or attribute content "described by a schema document" is not just
15:24:59 [pauld]
too informal; as suggested above, it's likely that you really want to
15:25:01 [pauld]
talk about the element or attribute content allowed by a schema.
15:25:03 [pauld]
Conversely, you could more clearly define a set of rules relating to
15:25:05 [pauld]
individual schema documents if that's what you really intend.
15:25:07 [pauld]
15:25:33 [pauld]
pauld: this is related to the infoset (v) document issue. It would be much harder to write test tools for this
15:25:50 [pauld]
yves: we're testing for bytes on the wire, not at the infoset level
15:27:18 [pauld]
pauld: the only way I could see this working is if they had an XML format for their infoset or even the PSVI
15:27:30 [pauld]
pauld: anyone want to support this comment?
15:27:35 [pauld]
15:28:16 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: lc-xsd-5 rejected
15:29:04 [pauld]
Topic: lc-xsd-6
15:29:06 [pauld]
15:29:19 [pauld]
* Section 1.4 says that conformance requires that an implementation: "MUST
15:29:21 [pauld]
be able to consume any well-formed [XML 1.0] document which satisfies
15:29:22 [pauld]
local-schema validity against the originating [XML Schema 1.0] document
15:29:24 [pauld]
exposing all of the [XML 1.0] element node and attribute node content in
15:29:25 [pauld]
the data model." Again, local-schema validity is not a relation defined
15:29:27 [pauld]
on the pair {instance, schema document}, it is (presuming you indicate
15:29:28 [pauld]
which type or element declaration to start with) defined on the pair
15:29:30 [pauld]
{instance, schema}"
15:29:31 [pauld]
15:30:23 [pauld]
15:31:18 [pauld]
pauld: anyone feel like they have better words for this assertion?
15:32:21 [pauld]
15:33:17 [pauld]
gcowe: let's ask them for better text!
15:33:30 [pauld]
ACTION: pdowney to ask the Schema WG for advice
15:33:30 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-129 - Ask the Schema WG for advice [on Paul Downey - due 2008-03-25].
15:34:10 [pauld]
pauld: so we accept the comment, but don't have the skills to address it to schema WG's satisfaction
15:34:18 [pauld]
Topic: lc-xsd-7
15:34:55 [pauld]
* Section 2: "The [XPath 2.0] expression is located from an [XML Schema
15:34:56 [pauld]
1.0] element node which may be the document element, or an element
15:34:58 [pauld]
contained inside an [XML 1.0] document such as [WSDL 2.0] description."
15:34:59 [pauld]
It's not quite clear what is meant in saying that an "[XPath 2.0]
15:35:01 [pauld]
expression is located from". Is this trying to establish the "Context
15:35:02 [pauld]
Node" for the XPath expression as being the node of the <xsd:schema>
15:35:04 [pauld]
element? If so, we recommend you say that more clearly, preferably with
15:35:05 [pauld]
hyperlinks to the pertinent parts of the XPath Recommendation. Also, the
15:35:07 [pauld]
phrase "may not" can be read as prohibiting the case where the element
15:35:08 [pauld]
note is the document node. I suspect you meant "need not". Finally, [XML
15:35:10 [pauld]
Schema 1.0] element node isn't a term that appears in the XSD
15:35:11 [pauld]
Recommendation; did you mean the "root element information item of the
15:35:13 [pauld]
schema document"?
15:35:50 [pauld]
pauld: accept "need not" change to text
15:36:33 [pauld]
pauld: suggest a note to say "this is to establish the Context node for the XPath expression"
15:37:14 [pauld]
pauld: seems reasonable to link to the XPath recommedation
15:38:04 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: accepted lc-xsd-7 with suggested text changes
15:38:30 [pauld]
Topic: lc-xsd-8
15:38:33 [pauld]
* Sections 2.x: The phrase "An [XML 1.0] document exibits the XXXXX
15:38:35 [pauld]
pattern...." is used repeatedly in these sections and their descendents.
15:38:36 [pauld]
See comments about about need to refer to "schema documents", if that's
15:38:38 [pauld]
what's intended.
15:38:49 [pauld]
pauld: looks like the documents (v) infoset comment again
15:39:22 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: rejected as for lc-xsd-5
15:40:50 [pauld]
yves: is that the instance document?
15:41:48 [pauld]
pauld: we could be clearer that it's a WSDL 1.0, 2.0, Schema, whatever, but balooning the boilerplate isn't desirable
15:42:38 [pauld]
pauld: we already have "2.1 Schema Element
15:42:39 [pauld]
The xs:schema element MAY be the document element, but MAY also appear within other descriptions such as a [WSDL 2.0] or [WSDL 1.1] document. †"
15:43:40 [pauld]
yves: text tied up better to the "An [XML 1.0] document exhibits the"
15:44:18 [pauld]
s/RESOLUTION: rejected as for lc-xsd-5/RESOLUTION: accepted lc-xsd-5 as requiring clarification/
15:46:13 [pauld]
Topic: lc-xsd-9
15:46:16 [pauld]
15:46:45 [pauld]
* Section 2.1.2: talks about qualified local elements, but the sample
15:46:46 [pauld]
schema contains no local elements.
15:46:57 [pauld]
pauld: we could change the example to include local elements
15:47:19 [pauld]
gcowe: what does that mean for the test suite? is this one excluded?
15:47:36 [pauld]
pauld: I suspect this is something we've excluded, so it could be safe
15:48:28 [pauld]
could risk introducing an advanced pattern
15:48:59 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: accepted lc-xsd-9, will expand example
15:50:42 [pauld]
example something like:
15:50:43 [pauld]
<xs:element name="echoDateAttribute">
15:50:45 [pauld]
15:50:46 [pauld]
15:50:48 [pauld]
<xs:element ref="ex:dateAttribute"/>
15:50:49 [pauld]
15:50:51 [pauld]
15:50:52 [pauld]
15:51:31 [pauld]
gcowe: will update example
15:52:19 [pauld]
Topic: lc-xsd-10
15:52:25 [pauld]
* Section 2.1.6: BlockDefault. This pattern seems to imply that
15:52:26 [pauld]
substitutions and or derivations are blocked if the @blockDefault
15:52:28 [pauld]
attribute is provided, but in fact that attribute carries a value that can
15:52:29 [pauld]
selectively enable or disable blocking for any combination of extension,
15:52:31 [pauld]
restriction, and substitution. It seems unlikely that the rule of
15:52:32 [pauld]
interest is really that the attribute is present. Is that what's
15:52:34 [pauld]
intended, or did you wish to actually check for certain values of the
15:52:35 [pauld]
blockDefault. Note, in particular, that an explicit blockDefault="" has
15:52:37 [pauld]
the same semantic as leaving out the attribute entirely.
15:52:38 [pauld]
I regret that I did not have time to review the remainder of the patterns
15:52:40 [pauld]
in the draft, but I would assume that the above comments would be
15:52:41 [pauld]
representative of what would be found for other patterns.
15:52:43 [pauld]
jonc: mea culpa!
15:53:42 [pauld]
jonc: pattern needs tightening up,
15:54:54 [pauld]
pauld: it's been moved to Advanced anyway
15:55:32 [pauld]
ACTION: jcalladi to sort out BlockDefault patterns
15:55:33 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-130 - Sort out BlockDefault patterns [on Jonathan Calladine - due 2008-03-25].
15:56:18 [pauld]
RESOLUTION: accepted lc-xsd-10, BlockDefault has been moved to Advanced
15:56:34 [pauld]
15:56:57 [pauld]
s/Topic:/Topic: lc-xsd-11 Editorial Concerns/
15:57:19 [pauld]
The databinding draft is very long, and a lot of it is devoted to what is
15:57:21 [pauld]
ultimately boilerplate. Consider the targetNamespace pattern. It is
15:57:22 [pauld]
introduced with nearly 1/2 page of multicolor writeup, but really all it's
15:57:24 [pauld]
trying to say seems to be: This pattern requires that the schema
15:57:25 [pauld]
document have a targetNamespace attribute with an absolute URI as its
15:57:27 [pauld]
value. That could be said much more clearly and concisely. I think the
15:57:28 [pauld]
draft would be much more effective if the patterns were introduced in a
15:57:30 [pauld]
manner that was as concise and clear as possible. It's not helpful to
15:57:31 [pauld]
repeat over and over "An [XML 1.0] document exhibits....", and as noted
15:57:33 [pauld]
above, the example schema could be made shorter and clearer. Finally,
15:57:34 [pauld]
what would be most helpful for a pattern like this is to explain ">>why<<
15:57:36 [pauld]
an absolute URI"? The Schema recommendation points to the XML Namespaces
15:57:37 [pauld]
recommendation for the definition of a namespace name, and that in turn
15:57:39 [pauld]
requires a URI Reference [5], not an Absolute URI. So, it would be
15:57:40 [pauld]
useful in general if some of the boilerplate were eliminated and the
15:57:42 [pauld]
sections made much shorter and easier to read, but conversely it would be
15:57:43 [pauld]
useful to say a bit about what makes the pattern interesting. Explain
15:57:45 [pauld]
briefly if there's a reason why absolute namespace URIs are interesting,
15:57:46 [pauld]
or did you really just mean this pattern to be "a non-absent
15:57:48 [pauld]
targetNamespace is available"?
15:57:59 [pauld]
pauld: boilerplate?
15:58:29 [pauld]
pauld: it's not a very human readable spec!
15:58:48 [pauld]
gcowe: it is computer generated
15:59:03 [pauld]
jonc: hard to avoid
15:59:37 [pauld]
pauld: without a concrete proposal, I'm going to push back. The work is in our testing and detector ..
16:00:21 [pauld]
pauld; >>>why<<<
16:00:29 [pauld]
16:01:18 [pauld]
jonc: discussion was it's opening the flood gates, and this is for the primer
16:01:46 [pauld]
pauld: I know, I'm not keen on specs which justify themselves
16:02:08 [pauld]
pauld: we're pretty clear why a pattern is Basic or Advanced
16:02:40 [pauld]
pauld: we're not clear on how patterns come about
16:03:13 [pauld]
.. sounds like something we could add as editorial text, volunteers?
16:04:05 [pauld]
pauld: we've done a lot of work in terms of test tools and suites, and that' the best approach IMO
16:05:05 [pauld]
jonc: was in Noah's position, but it's seems best left to additional documents and discussion, on a wiki?
16:05:52 [pauld]
pauld: XML was famously wafted by Tim Bray as a small spec, then the first thing he did was publish an "annotated version". You're free to do the same :)
16:07:02 [pauld]
pauld: I think its' fair comment to say why a pattern is interesting. Hmm. Will look at that generically in the introduction.
16:08:31 [pauld]
RESOULTION: accepted lc-xsd-11 in part, will add more introduction text
16:09:13 [pauld]
Topic: Status of Publication
16:09:48 [pauld]
pauld: all of the comments accepted are editorial, any objections to incorporating the text and then going ahead to Last Call as planned?
16:09:55 [pauld]
None heard
16:11:13 [pauld]
pickup again next tuesday
16:12:01 [Zakim]
16:12:02 [Zakim]
16:12:04 [Zakim]
16:12:06 [Zakim]
16:12:07 [Zakim]
WS_DBWG()10:00AM has ended
16:12:09 [Zakim]
Attendees were George_Cowe, +0791888aaaa, pauld, Yves, jonc
16:12:16 [pauld]
RRSagent, generate minutes
16:12:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pauld
16:17:02 [pauld]
rrsagent, make logs public
17:36:03 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #databinding