14:01:33 RRSAgent has joined #exi 14:01:33 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/08/16-exi-irc 14:01:35 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:01:35 Zakim has joined #exi 14:01:37 Zakim, this will be EXIWG 14:01:37 ok, trackbot 14:01:38 Meeting: Efficient XML Interchange Working Group Teleconference 14:01:38 Date: 16 August 2016 14:01:50 scribe: TK 14:01:57 scribeNick: taki 14:04:21 dape has joined #exi 14:06:18 Present: TK, DP, DB, CB 14:07:34 brutzman has joined #exi 14:07:59 TOPIC: EXI4JSON 14:08:22 TOPIC: RE: abbreviation for "EXI for JSON"? 14:09:53 DP: I am not sure if we should replace all occurrences of "EXI for JSON" with EXI4JSON. 14:10:54 DB: It has a benefit of becoming more searchable. 14:15:45 DP: In introduction, I can use EXI4JSON as an abbreviation. 14:16:35 Efficient XML Interchange (EXI) for JSON --> Efficient XML Interchange (EXI) for JSON (EXI4JSON) 14:16:35 TK: Can we also mention in the title as well? 14:17:21 Looks good. I think EXI4JSON should be used as often as possible because it aids in searchability. 14:17:48 EXI for JSON (EXI4JSON) is a reasonable title 14:18:12 Searching to find "EXI for JSON" would likely find the initial entry 14:18:31 s/initial entry/initial entry as well/ 14:21:11 CB: I don't see need for replacing all occurrences of EXI for JSON. 14:21:29 CB: Especially, in text descriptions. 14:24:36 DP: We can define them as synonym in title. We can mix the usage whereever appropriate. 14:27:28 TOPIC: Comments on EXI4JSON 14:28:59 DP: We describe both processing steps. 14:29:11 DP: JSON to EXI, and EXI back to JSON. 14:33:28 DP: I would totally replace section 3.2. 14:35:16 DB: If section 3.1 describes the equivalences in representation, section 3.2 is not necessary? 14:35:31 Attempted summary: section 3.2 is no longer necessary if section 3.1 describes equivalences between representations? 14:35:57 DP: That is also now my understanding. 14:36:25 DB: Instead of "transform", you would use... 14:36:31 DP: "represent" or something 14:37:03 Example changes in 3.1: "transforms" becomes "value is equivalent to" 14:37:20 DP: and needs some text replacements, such as "transformed" with "represented". 14:38:19 DB: "equivalent representation for" is also good. 14:38:44 A similar expression might be "is an equivalent representation for" - but that might look too wordy. Whatever works. 14:41:32 DP: For the schema, I think we should keep the schema file. 14:42:00 taki1 has joined #exi 14:43:30 https://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema.xsd 14:43:43 wondering, to avoid potential ambiguity, can we rename appendix "B Schema for JSON" to "B EXI Schema for JSON" 14:43:48 CB: Schema for schema is not in TR space. 14:44:02 CB: So you can still fix the schema. 14:44:33 Similarly we should rename schema to avoid ambiguity, exi-schema-for-json.xsd or somesuch 14:45:48 Motivation is search: if someone looks up "JSON Schema" they should realize this is different 14:45:55 schema for EXI4JSON 14:46:03 https://www.w3.org/TR/exi/#optionsSchema --- Title is "C XML Schema for EXI Options Document" 14:46:14 exi4json.xsd perhaps 14:46:35 DP: EXI spec says "XML schema for EXI options document" 14:47:04 DB: For consistency, we should say "XML Schema for EXI4JSON" 14:48:12 DP: The name of the file remains as it is. 14:48:49 DP: The name should be schema-for-exi4json.xsd? 14:51:16 TK: exi4json.xsd is also ok for me. 14:51:43 DP: Where should we put it? 14:52:16 CB: If you put it in TR space, it will be updated in place. 14:52:42 CB: I would put it next to the specification in TR space for now. 14:52:57 CB: It depends on how stable the schema the WG thinks. 14:53:15 just posted to member-exi, can we look at a wording suggestion? (i only have a few minutes left) https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-exi-wg/2016Aug/0024.html 14:53:49 CB: We will have a new URI for the next publication. 14:54:22 i think the schema is stable and is unlikely to change functionally 14:54:54 CB: Are we use a link to this document? Probably not, right? 14:55:34 CB: We use it in appendix using relative URI. So this is ok. 14:55:43 http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-exi-for-json-20160128/ 14:56:03 CB: Schema will be still accessible. 14:59:44 hopefull the more precise wording in the 0024.html suggestion will prevent someone from thinking "oh they already have a schema-aware mapping customization from JSON schemas to customized XML schemas" 15:01:11 am supportive of publishing for comment, thanks for continuing diligence 15:10:58 CB: I think we can remove the part that talks about general mapping from section 2. Concept. 15:11:16 CB: Because the current first paragraph precisely describes what we do. 15:11:40 TK: I agree. 15:13:29 DP: For the acknowledgement section, we need the names of supporters. 15:17:31 RESOLUTION: The WG agrees that we publish EXI4JSON after reflecting the changes we discussed during this call. 15:21:20 TOPIC: Canonical EXI 15:22:36 DP: For issue ISSUE-95, I tried to incorporate the changes. 15:23:35 https://www.w3.org/XML/EXI/docs/canonical/canonical-exi.html#canonicalOptionsSchema 15:24:32 DP: We want to import EXI options document schema. 15:24:47 DP: However, the schema file is not available online. 15:25:45 CB: We can add a schema. 15:26:27 https://www.w3.org/2009/exi/schema-name.xsd 15:27:23 https://www.w3.org/2009/exi/options.xsd 15:31:33 rrsagent, create minutes 15:31:33 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/16-exi-minutes.html taki1 15:51:27 zakim, bye 15:51:27 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been TK, DP, DB, CB 15:51:27 Zakim has left #exi