Databinding WG Teleconference
7 Nov 2006


See also: IRC log


Jon Calladine (BT)
George Cowe (Origo Services Limited)
Paul Downey (BT)
Otu Ekanem (BT)
Yves Lafon (W3C)
Vladislav Bezrukov (SAP AG)
Priscilla Walmsley (W3C Invited Expert)



minutes from the 24th approved

ISSUE-12 Detection of Patterns

pauld: status of patterns and detector
... can people run the detector on their own schemas

george: does the detector follow included schemas
... it would be useful if it did
... i'll investigate

<scribe> ACTION: gcowe to investigate the patterns detector following import and include [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/07-databinding-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-89 - Investigate the patterns detector following import and include [on George Cowe - due 2006-11-14].

pauld: following import/includes should be optional

jonc: we had interop issues so don't do a lot of import/including

pauld: be aware of loops
... building a collection of patterns detected in public schemas to go alongside our examples

ISSUE-2 Test Suite

yves: been looking at XMLUnit

pauld: will be at WSDL 2.0 event, would like to think about using it there

yves: can send work in progress

ISSUE-88 id attribute

pauld: unlikely to effect code gen

RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-88 as a Basic Pattern

Abstract Types


jonc: abstract='true' likely to be advanced
... we've rejected switching xsi:type as being Basic

we have: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/examples/6/09/ComplexTypeSequenceExtension/

can't the base class be "abstract"?

jonc: most tools will ignore this, and probably allow an instance document to be created

gcowe: our experience wasn't great with abstract

jonc: can't see benefit in making it basic when it's really for advanced patterns
... want to treat element and complexType separately

pauld: recalls seeing code-first tools present interfaces as abstract='true'
... abstract='false' seems safe,
... i can see abstract elements being advanced, but complexType being basic
... it'll be at risk subject to test

RESOLUTION: accept abstract=false as a Basic Pattern, complexType abstract=true as a Basic Pattern and abstract element as Advanced

gcowe: are we going to take the same approach for all default attribute values?

ISSUE-92 default values for schema attributes may be explicitly provided


created during the call

RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-92 as accepting default schema attributes explicitly set as Basic

final and block issues

jonc: introduces ISSUE-83, ISSUE-88, ISSUE-89

feels they should be Basic as they limit the use of xsi:type, even if they're ignored, they're unlikely to break anything

pauld: if we accept the attributes as Basic, do we have enough granularity to remove ones which don't work with tools?

jonc: these are mostly harmless

gcowe: if tools ignore them, is it a problem?

RESOLUTION: block, final and blockDefault, finalDefault are Basic Patterns, may be finer grained patterns in the document

ISSUE-84 Local Element ComplexType

pauld: in essence this is Russian Doll, used very widely, but we have encountered bad experiences with tools

jonc: we had problems with some in-support tools from big name vendors

pauld: do we put it in to rip out under testing? leaving it out will be questioned
... prefer to make it Basic and test it

jonc: we need to make sure to add BEA 8.x and other mainstream tools to our testing

RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-84 as a Basic Pattern

ISSUE-57 xs:include pattern

pauld: this is really an issue with our test suite

RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-57 as Basic, examples needed

ISSUE-73 Do we allow DTDs, external entities, etc?

pauld: is widespreadly used, notably in the schema for schemas, no reason to say anything.

RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-73 with no action, examples would be useful

ISSUE-74 Relative URIs in targetNamespace schemaLocation

george: won't the test suite find this

pauld: if we add patterns and examples for relative URIs and xml:base
... propose targetNamespace must be an absolute URI

RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-74 with pauld's proposal

ISSUE-10 Mapping Element and Type names

this is a long standing issue


george: is one pattern is Basic and the others Advanced?

pauld: initially they're all proposed as being Basic, but under testing may be moved to advanced

yves: i'm ok so long as we call out we're not profiling, but trying to document interoperability

pauld: will write an editorial note raising the awareness of this issue being at risk

RESOLUTION: ISSUE-10 closed with paul's proposal

Last Call

pauld: are we ready for Last Call?

jonc: ISSUE-70?

pauld: oops!

RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-70 as a Basic Pattern

yves: we don't need to close all issues to go to Last Call
... we can remove features marked as "at risk" all our patterns

pauld: our assertions aren't at risk
... my feeling is we need more text (editorial) and patterns and examples for all our closed issues (editorial)
... biggest danger is we have patterns missing for any very basic features

yves: we can make editorial changes after last call, non-normative changes can go onto CR/PR

pauld: how long do we need to give?

yves: 6 weeks is usual

pauld: that sits right during the holiday season :-(
... ok lets do some editorial work and vote on it next week since we're heading for start of January anyway

yves: you can have a F2F during LC to answer issues

pauld: we may do that depending upon public reaction

pauld: in the meantime, please try the patterns detector on your schemas and report back on any missing patterns, especially ones which should be Basic


Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: gcowe to investigate the patterns detector following import and include [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/07-databinding-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2006/11/14 16:47:08 $