Databinding WG Teleconference
2 May 2006


See also: IRC log


Jon Calladine, (BT)
George Cowe (Origo Services)
Paul Downey (Chair, BT)
Otu Ekanem (BT)
Yves Lafon (W3C)
Ajith Ranabahu (WSO2)
JonC, pauld



<pauld> scribe: JonC

Minutes 18/04/06 approved

WG is lagging behind chartered schedule

pauld will be re-issuing roadmap document soon


pauld: we've a F2F in a couple of weeks - expect to discuss issues, the testsuite, and make a start on the advanced patterns. Ideally I'd like to move basic patterns to Last Call soon after. Biggest problem is going to be how do we know when we're done?

pauld: we don't have Tony with us and wanted to discuss expectations for his contibuted patterns.

pauld: please submit patterns and raise issues on the list to help set the Agenda, which I'll aim to do a week ahead of the F2F

ISSUE-12 and ISSUE-35: Detection of Patterns

Ajith: have been looking at Issue-12 again this week

Discussion of use of schematron for validation tool

pauld: ideal to have single schemtron schema that identifies patterns

pauld: latest editors' draft has {OPTIONAL} patterns and {REQUIRED} assertions.

Ajith: plan to develop this further over next week

pauld: ideal to have access to the tool from a web page, though not essential at this stage

pauld: ISSUE-35 and 12 closely related, don't anticipate looking at flagging "warnings" until we have a basic framework.

ISSUE-33: xs:choice a Basic Pattern?


<pauld> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsd-databinding/2006Apr/0017.html

<pauld> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/databinding/issues/33

pauld: this was actually closed last week... d'oh, I'm working from the wrong agenda!

ISSUE-32: element repetitions other than 1 or unbounded


gcowe: ran tests against 3 tools. All treated element list as unbounded rather than a finite maxOccurs for validation

pauld: this means that tools will most likely handle such a pattern
... suggest pattern can be included in basic document.

JonC: need 'design considerations' text to explain that validation may not be as expected

pauld: that proposal in a nutshell:

<pauld> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsd-databinding/2006Apr/0048

RESOLUTION: ISSUE-32 CLOSED with pauld's proposal with design consideration to reflect validation issue

ISSUE-34: multiple schemas for a single namespace


gcowe: we use schema with request and response documents sharing the same namespace but with seperate definitions for a shared element

pauld: as paul biron indicated it is valid to have element defintions split across multiple schemas

pauld: but combining these (schemas with duplication) in a schema or wsdl processor is likely to cause problems

pauld: schema component designator specification/technical note written to assist developers of processors, this may be useful in explaining how symbols are scoped.

<pauld> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-ref/

ACTION: pdowney to take ISSUE-32 to the WS-I Basic Profile WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/02-databinding-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-36 - Take ISSUE-32 to the WS-I Basic Profile WG [on Paul Downey - due 2006-05-09].

ISSUE-36: Tool selection for testing of basic pattern assertions

<inserted> Scribe: pauld

this issue goes above and beyond ISSUE-4 - collection of known databinding tools

jonc: within BT we have a set of tools important to us - I added to that subset a list of leading tools we see others using
... we need to ensure we're covering a good number of languages and environments

george: interested to see list of tools linked into validation report

pauld: CR could help us here - I worry that we do all the work for all the different tools rather than getting individual vendors to buy into our framework

jonc: we need this indicative evidence when writing the spec

pauld: babbles .. what would be the cirteria for NOT including a tool in this list?

jonc: wants a representitive list, having 6 Java tools wouldn't be as useful as one tool from each language
... enumerating some kits may flush out others. with the people we have, 6 or so is all we're likely to achieve
... we need at the very least one leading commercial and Open Source tool from each language - does this make sense?

pauld: propose building a list of all known tools (ISSUE-4), and use the CR / interop report to reflect tools we used in writing the spec.

pauld: out of time, we'll pick this up again next week

thanks for scribing, jon!

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: pdowney to take ISSUE-32 to the WS-I Basic Profile WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/02-databinding-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2006/05/09 15:55:48 $