XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Working Group Teleconference

11 Mar 2008


See also: IRC log


Jon Calladine (BT)
George Cowe (Origo Services Limited)
Paul Downey (BT)
Yves Lafon (W3C)


Publication of Basic Patterns

pauld: we need to renew the charter, runs out end of this month

yves: we need to have a document published, that'll help

gcowe: "elementfinal" isn't valid, and is "Basic", should be removed


pauld: testing worked?

gcowe: example was missing

pauld: doubly sure we should remove it
... OK so "ElementFinal" is removed as a pattern


<gcowe> elementfixed was a new advanced pattern added

pauld: elementfixed accepted as an advaced
... I'll produce a list of differences

XML Schema WG send comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsd-databinding-comments/2008Feb/0000.html

pauld: most look reasonable
... most look like they apply to spec as it stands
... suggest I raise these as LC issues, publish this week on the list and we OK at a meeting next tuesday

pauld: we need to list the changes from the previous Last Call publication in the status section:

$ cvs co -r1.67 patterns.xml

last call patterns: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/patterns/patterns-lc1.xml


need to record list of patterns added and removed since our last, last call

gcowe: will look at the differences

Collection and Schema Annotation

<Yves> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xmlschema-patterns-20061122/

pauld: have a technique for annotation schema, should have it tonight


* References to concepts and terminology from XSD need to be made more

precise. For example, section 1.3 says "A document claiming conformance

to this specification ... MUST conform to the [XML Schema 1.0

Recommendation]", but XSD provides no conformance requirements for

"documents" in general. It would be more appropriate to say that "A

document claiming conformance to this specification ... MUST be a 'schema

document' [2], as defined in [XML Schema 1.0 Recommendation], and MUST

therefore meet the "Constraints on the representation of schema components

in XML" [3] provided therein." Actually, there's a further mismatch on

infosets vs. serialization; see next point.


RESOLUTION: Accepted suggested text for lc-xsd-1


* 1.3 also says that a document conforming to the databinding

specification must be a well formed XML 1.0 document; XSD defines a

schema document as an Infoset with <xs:schema> as the root element. You

should make clear whether the mismatch is intentional, and if so rewrite

the text suggested above accordingly. Otherwise, you should change to

indicate that a conforming document is infact an Infoset, consistent with

XSD. That will mean changing the many references to XML 1.0 documents

that appear throughout your draft.

pauld: we discussed this early on, I should find evidence of our discussion, but we agreed to work at the XML level, and this is an addition constraint over the XML Schema spec, and this is a part of our relationship to the WS-I BP

RESOLUTION: Rejected lc-xsd-2


* Section 1.4 suggests that a conforming application "SHOULD be able to

process any valid [XML Schema 1.0] document.". First of all, there's some

question as to whether a SHOULD is appropriate in a conformance section.

Notwithstanding that, the reference to [XML Schema 1.0] documents is

again not strictly clear, since XSD talks about instances to be validated

as well as schema documents. We suggest a formal reference to 'schema

documents' [2] as in the first point above.

pauld: whole point of our spec is that not all implementations can swallow any documents


pauld: what would be the advantage of removing this?

yves: wouldn't impact people's reading of the document

pauld: anyone want to argue against removing: http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xmlschema-patterns-20071031/#assert-AnySchema

RESOLUTION: Accepted lc-xsd-3 and remove assert-AnySchema


* Section 1.4 says that conformance requires that an implementation: "

MUST produce a data model exposing all of the [XML 1.0] element node and

attribute node content described by the originating [XML Schema 1.0]

document.", but "described by" is not a formal relation or operation

provided for in XSD. Especially in a conformance requirement, this seems

too informal.

pauld: no alternative terminology suggested. "described by" is pretty OK by me, but then I'm no spec lawyer
... any suggestions for better suggestion?

yves: "per"

pauld: or we could define "described by"

gcowe: "constrained by"

pauld: "constrained" is used throughout the XML Schema spec

RESOLUTION: Accepted lc-xsd-4 replacing "described" with "constrained"

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/03/18 17:59:56 $