14:02:18 RRSAgent has joined #exi 14:02:18 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/09/06-exi-irc 14:02:20 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:02:20 Zakim has joined #exi 14:02:22 Zakim, this will be EXIWG 14:02:22 ok, trackbot 14:02:23 Meeting: Efficient XML Interchange Working Group Teleconference 14:02:23 Date: 06 September 2016 14:02:28 scribe: TK 14:02:33 scribeNick: taki 14:03:08 dape has joined #exi 14:11:49 brutzman has joined #exi 14:20:13 TOPIC: EXI4JSON 14:20:54 TOPIC: ACTION-739: Integrate WoT type system's schema mapping content into EXI4JSON spec 14:20:58 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-exi-wg/2016Sep/0003.html 14:22:58 brutzman has joined #exi 14:25:57 DP: In WoT document, we described using method #1. 14:30:19 DB: JSON schema community is active, we can continue to use it in an informative manner. 14:31:51 DB: There will be a formal standard. 14:34:07 Wondering if the example 23/24 that you are showing on the screen implies a different XML schema supporting EXI4JSON? 14:34:07 Present: TK, DB, DP, CB 14:34:35 DP: More prose way to describe the JSON is possible. 14:37:26 so are you saying: availability of a JSON schema might show a more efficient to encode the JSON, which in turn might be more efficiently represented? 14:38:01 also wondering, does Taki's example show a general mapping from JSON schema to XML schema? 14:40:44 so perhaps 2 EXI4JSON mappings are possible: (a) XML schema for JSON types in EXI4JSON draft; (b) EXI schema, mapped to an XML schema, in turn used for an EXI encoding 14:41:28 correction 14:41:50 so perhaps 2 EXI4JSON mappings are possible: (a) XML schema for JSON types in EXI4JSON draft; (b) JSON schema v4, mapped to an XML schema, in turn used for an EXI encoding 14:42:15 revision #2 14:42:32 so perhaps 2 EXI4JSON mappings are possible: (a) XML schema for JSON types in EXI4JSON draft; (b) JSON schema v4, mapped to an XML schema using the mappings in WoT Practices, in turn used for an EXI encoding 14:43:57 Reference: WoT Current Practices Unofficial Draft 06 September 2016, 3.2.4.3 Mapping to XML Schema, http://w3c.github.io/wot/current-practices/wot-practices.html#mapping-to-xml-schema 14:44:59 Approach (b) matches the EDITOR'S NOTE there: A complete "JSON Schema" to "XML Schema" mapping needs to be defined. 14:45:37 So would you rather have approach (a) or (b)? 14:46:06 Yogi Berri: "when you come to a fork in the road - take it" 14:46:35 ... so in our case, we should explore both. Each will be very interesting and have pros/cons 14:47:17 Example: Pros for approach (a) includes simplicity, repeatability, etc. 14:47:18 DB: Approach A is good at simplicity. 14:47:38 DB: Approach B can be more efficient. 14:47:43 If Approach (b) can be more more efficient, it might be preferred however. 14:47:46 approach b) would be more interesting only if you already have a JSON schema instance, right? 14:48:21 it depends on whether JSON schema is widely used... 14:48:29 It might also be the case that Approach (b) is more compact, but Approach (a) has better performance. Testing will be needed./ 14:48:37 DP: I think the efficiency will be the same. 14:48:58 DP: Approach A is more generic. Without JSON schema, it works. 14:49:11 DP: Approach B requires JSON schema. 14:50:25 It is further interesting that JSON Schema will be present for many things, and this pair of approaches will be possible will be possible for anyone to choose from. 14:52:03 If the goal is to round-trip convert JSON to JSON, then Approach (b) is more involved. Interoperability might be considered less as well. 14:53:37 Since both approaches are possible, it seems appealing to add another section to EXI4JSON draft showing Approach (b) - adapting & completing the writeup in WoT Best Practices 14:54:20 ... subsequent comparison of test results will also be helpful to characterize there 14:55:19 DP: will work on it to see if that is a good direction 14:57:41 Not to be overlooked: given any JSON, which is an inherently well-formed object, there is at least one and possibly 2 ways to map it to XML Schema and to EXI. 14:58:58 ... in other words, it appears that XML Schema is a superset of what can be expressed in JSON 15:03:28 Approach (a) seems analogous to well-formed data with type awareness, while approach (b) supports schema validation structures 15:03:35 DB: Approach A is anologous to well-formed type-aware approach. 15:04:00 Another interesting point is that Approach (a) is suitable for hardware implementation 15:04:07 DB: Approach A is suitable for hardware implementation. 15:04:46 Also worth noting: for round trip JSON to JSON, both approaches are lossless 15:04:49 DB: Are both approach A and B loss-less? 15:04:53 DP: Yes 15:06:57 There are some interesting parallels. In some ways, the question "Is XML Schema needed for your data" is similar to "Is JSON Schema needed for your data" 15:08:22 TOPIC: Canonical EXI 15:09:15 DP: I did minor tweaking. No big changes. 15:09:48 DP: I would like to ask the group for a final review. 15:10:41 CB: I can help in adapting it to use new style. 15:11:57 TK: Please review it for Candidate Recommendation publication. 15:12:44 TK: Can we make publication decision next week? 15:13:20 I am still concerned with Issue 114 https://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/exi/issues/114 15:15:15 This seems contrary to have 4 alternatives. The notion of utcTime is inherent to the XML schema of the governing document, which is clearly stated in the XML Schema recommendation. With/without options ought to be simple: they are there, or they are not. So I don't understand why 4 varieties are expressed. 15:16:53 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-exi/2016Jul/0000.html 15:17:16 I could see that an EXI Option might express utcTime normalization status - but that is optional. If it is a required part of the canonicalization encoding, then that is forcing the canonicalizer to make a semantic declaration regarding something that is not known. 15:17:44 Is Issue 114 still viable, or overcome by events? 15:20:17 So is this the resolution: https://www.w3.org/XML/EXI/docs/canonical/canonical-exi.html#utcTime 15:20:30 ... [Definition: The utcTime option is used to specify whether Date-Time values must be represented using Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, sometimes called "Greenwich Mean Time"). ] 15:21:17 DP: 2.1 Canonical EXI Options, https://www.w3.org/XML/EXI/docs/canonical/canonical-exi.html#canonicalOptions 15:22:03 Thanks! That is where I had hoped you landed. 15:22:57 Are all open Issues and Actions handled? https://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/exi/products/14 15:24:22 discussion - most can be closed, TK will update and close them after the call 15:25:02 DP: some tests and other small issues remain, they can occur after this next draft 15:26:17 it seems valuable to publish in time for TPAC 15:27:20 ... because that will help support any discussions with XML Security group, which is important for our future strategies to achieve compatible EXI security 15:28:53 DP thinks it would be good if EXI group can all check again 15:29:41 Since the editors draft is already available, I suppose that is satisfactory preparation for TPAC. 15:30:08 TK: also wants to perform another thorough review 15:33:44 rrsagent, create minutes 15:33:44 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/06-exi-minutes.html taki 16:38:40 Zakim has left #exi