15:55:34 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #xproc
15:55:34 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/02/16-xproc-irc
15:55:37 <Norm> zakim, this will be xproc
15:55:37 <Zakim> ok, Norm; I see XML_PMWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
15:55:50 <Norm> Meeting: XML Processing Model WG
15:55:50 <Norm> Scribe: Norm
15:55:50 <Norm> ScribeNick: Norm
15:55:50 <Norm> Date: 16 Feb 2006
15:55:50 <Norm> Chair: Norm
15:55:51 <Norm> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/02/16-agenda.html
15:56:01 <Norm> Norm has changed the topic to: XProc http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/02/16-agenda.html
15:56:07 <vikas> vikas has joined #xproc
15:56:32 <Norm> zakim, agenda+ Administrivia
15:56:32 <Zakim> agendum 1 added
15:56:43 <Norm> zakim, agenda+ Requirements and Use Cases
15:56:43 <Zakim> agendum 2 added
15:56:48 <Norm> zakim, agenda+ Any other business?
15:56:48 <Zakim> agendum 3 added
15:56:49 <Zakim> XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started
15:56:56 <Zakim> + +1.408.705.aaaa
15:58:09 <rlopes> rlopes has joined #xproc
15:58:35 <Zakim> +Norm
15:58:40 <Norm> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:58:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.408.705.aaaa, Norm
15:58:50 <Zakim> +Alessandro_Vernet
15:59:17 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:59:26 <Norm> zakim, aaaa is Vikas
15:59:26 <Zakim> +Vikas; got it
15:59:33 <Norm> zakim, [IPcaller is rlopes
15:59:33 <Zakim> +rlopes; got it
15:59:47 <Zakim> +Murray_Maloney
16:00:41 <alexmilowski> alexmilowski has joined #xproc
16:00:49 <Zakim> +[ArborText]
16:01:03 <PGrosso> PGrosso has joined #xproc
16:01:05 <Norm> zakim, [Arbortext is PGrosso 
16:01:05 <Zakim> +PGrosso; got it
16:01:26 <Zakim> +Alex_Milowski
16:02:03 <richard> richard has joined #xproc
16:02:33 <Zakim> +??P32
16:02:41 <richard> zakim, ? is richard
16:02:41 <Zakim> +richard; got it
16:03:21 <AndrewF> AndrewF has joined #xproc
16:03:48 <ebruchez> ebruchez has joined #xproc
16:03:53 <Zakim> +??P24
16:04:00 <Norm> zakim, ??P24 is AndrewF 
16:04:00 <Zakim> +AndrewF; got it
16:04:42 <Norm> zakim, who's on the phone?
16:04:42 <Zakim> On the phone I see Vikas, Norm, Alessandro_Vernet, rlopes, Murray_Maloney, PGrosso, Alex_Milowski, richard, AndrewF
16:05:38 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:05:38 <Norm> Present: Vikas, Norm, Alessandro, Rui, Murray, Paul, Alex, Richard, Andrew, Erik
16:05:38 <Norm> zakim, [IPcaller is ebruchez 
16:05:38 <Zakim> +ebruchez; got it
16:05:38 <Norm> Regrets: Michael Sperberg-McQueen, Henry, Jeni
16:05:38 <Norm> zakim, next agendum
16:05:38 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Administrivia" taken up [from Norm]
16:06:00 <Norm> Topic: Accept this agenda?
16:06:01 <Norm> -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/02/16-agenda.html
16:06:10 <Norm> Accepted.
16:06:15 <Norm> Topic: Accept minutes from the previous teleconference?
16:06:15 <Norm> -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/02/09-minutes.html
16:06:31 <Norm> Accepted.
16:06:37 <Norm> Topic: Next meeting: 23 Feb 2006.
16:06:37 <Norm> Any regrets?
16:06:46 <Zakim> -Vikas
16:06:55 <Norm> None
16:07:00 <Norm> Topic: Dail-in for the face-to-face at the plenary?
16:07:00 <Norm> (08:00+01:00-18:00+01:00 Monday and Tuesday, 27-28 Feb)
16:07:31 <Norm> Andrew would like to call in.
16:07:43 <Norm> Topic: Agenda planning for the face-to-face
16:09:05 <Norm> Alex: Infosets/representation of inputs as a topic for the f2f
16:09:21 <Norm> Norm: Processing model
16:09:38 <vikas> vikas has joined #xproc
16:10:21 <Norm> Richard: I was speaking about the non-xml stuff being the same thing
16:11:00 <Norm> Alex: Does it make sense to spend some time talking about the various tools that are out there?
16:11:06 <Zakim> +Vikas
16:11:20 <Norm> Richard: I was going to suggest the attendees that have a pipeline implementation give a brief presentation on it.
16:11:47 <Norm> zakim, next agendum
16:11:47 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Requirements and Use Cases" taken up [from Norm]
16:13:22 <PGrosso> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2006Feb/0013.html
16:13:59 <PGrosso> The above URL is from Alessandro.
16:14:22 <PGrosso> Alex: Point 1 is to have a defn of parameters which we do now.
16:15:01 <PGrosso> Alex: Point 2 should be taken care of now too.  Alessandro agrees.
16:17:09 <PGrosso> Alex: Point 3 (standard names for steps). We discussed that a component is like "XSLT" but a step is a thing in the pipeline that may make use of a given component like XSLT.
16:18:54 <Norm> Richard: Is a step a component plus some parameters plus it's position in the pipeline?
16:19:08 <Norm> Alex: Yes. In fact a step might even use multiple components.
16:19:57 <Norm> Richard: We probably don't have to come to complete closure on this now
16:20:40 <Norm> Alessandro: My comment was narrower, just that in the particular place in 4.6 where the word "step" is used, the word "component" would have been better.
16:21:21 <Norm> Alessandro: I see a Step like a function call and a Component more like a function.
16:21:40 <Norm> Alex: I could change 4.6 to say Component and be happy with that
16:21:58 <Norm> General agreement
16:22:59 <Norm> Alex: Point 4 is intended to say that we won't create a pipeline vocabulary that can't be validated
16:23:16 <Norm> Richard: Can you give an example of something that couldn't be validated?
16:23:43 <Norm> Alex: Atom, for example, voilates the XML Schema UPA rule by allowing interleaving at several levels
16:24:46 <Norm> Alex: I would like to avoid that, I'd like to create a vocabulary that can be validated with either language
16:25:19 <Norm> Richard: I agree as long as it's not taken to extremes. Don't use things that many validation tools can't validate. But if we wind up with co-constraints (in attribute values, for example), it may never the less be the best way to do that.
16:25:32 <Norm> Richard: We can't rule out all constraints that can't be checked by an XML Schema validator.
16:27:24 <Norm> Richard: This sounds more like a design principle
16:27:33 <Norm> Norm: I agree with Richard. 
16:27:45 <Norm> Alex: Ok.
16:29:07 <Norm> Alessandro: I was thinking of the XSLT case, where there are good things that can't be validated easily with XML schema. I wouldn't like us to constrian ourselves not to do that.
16:29:30 <Norm> Murray: On the other hand, we'd like processing languages to be as easily validated as possible. We should think long and hard before we let this one go.
16:30:29 <Norm> Murray: If we're going to allow something that isn't validatable, we're going to think long and hard about it.
16:31:15 <Norm> Alex: Point 5 is about naming of pipelines
16:31:25 <Norm> Alex: There's no use case for many of the things in the document so that's a more general problem.
16:31:44 <Norm> Norm: Can you give an example?
16:32:59 <Norm> Alex discusses giving pipeline documents URIs
16:33:19 <Norm> Murray: The mechanism that's missing is do I have a way to reference a pipeline and have it invoked
16:33:30 <Norm> Richard: Do you mean in general or in a pipeline?
16:33:48 <Norm> Richard: Do we want pipelines to be able to refer to one another?
16:34:11 <Norm> Alex: Consider 4.9 on composition, you could say use XInclude
16:35:04 <Norm> Alex: I think naming goes along with composition.
16:35:33 <Norm> Richard: It's been the case in several specifications that the new language has defined it's own inclusion mechansim. It has always been a hope that XInclude was vailable it wouldn't be necessary. Often, alas, it turns out to be necessary.
16:36:25 <Norm> Norm: I think the design principle "reuse existing technologies" covers that case.
16:37:41 <Norm> Norm: I propose that we leave 4.9 and let naming fall out of our composition mechanism if it does
16:38:13 <Norm> Richard: We also have the case of supplying the pipeline in the URI so that you can write a URI that means run this pipeline on this document with these parameters.
16:38:38 <Norm> Norm: I can't tell from 4.10 if that is what was for.
16:39:52 <Norm> Consensus: delete 4.10
16:42:33 <PGrosso> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2006Feb/0032.html
16:42:46 <PGrosso> [Norm's email]
16:42:49 <Norm> Thank you, Paul
16:43:56 <Norm> Norm describes his ideas
16:48:48 <Norm> Alex asks about the syntax
16:50:29 <Norm> Some discussion of flow and parallelism
16:53:24 <Norm> Richard: I have some problems that are simpler than Alex's case.
16:53:51 <Norm> Richard: The use of a "current" infoset has two implications: straight through processing, everything is one input or output unless it's named; the other is that it implies sequential processing.
16:54:03 <Norm> Richard: I don't think the sequential processing is an issue. But the first one is more important.
16:54:33 <Norm> Richard: If we want to have some components like "XML diff" then I don't think we want to have the two inputs be described in entirely different ways.
16:54:56 <Norm> Richard: Maybe one has to be input1 and the other input2, but we shouldn't have to go deeper than that.
16:55:21 <Norm> Richard: but using names for the non-XML data, then I think that's an approache to consider.
16:56:07 <Norm> A collection?
16:56:16 <Norm> Richard: that isn't what I had in mind
16:56:36 <Norm> Richard: Suppose you have a pipeline that wants to cleanup some insignificant diffs and then run the XML diff component.
16:56:56 <Norm> Richard: I imagine that you might start this pipeline with two inputs and at some point they get merged.
16:57:25 <Norm> Richard: At the point of the execution of the step that does the diff, I want that to be just like the case where there's only one
16:57:35 <Norm> Murray: I'm confused.
16:57:46 <Norm> Alex: Conceptually, this is two pipes inside a pipe I think.
16:58:12 <Norm> Some discussion of a shell script case
16:58:24 <Norm> Richard: I'm assuming that we have a way to have two things in the pipeline, I want to get them merged later one
16:58:42 <Norm> Richard: The way we get two things into the pipeline is by having some upstream thing refer to URIs
16:59:10 <Norm> Alessandro: I think it's an oversimplification to use the shell script analogy for everything.
16:59:22 <Norm> Alessandro: There are existing pipeline languages that can already handle this case.
16:59:30 <Alessandro> (That was Erik)
16:59:41 <Norm> Oh, sorry.
17:00:26 <Norm> Murray: Where I'm having difficulty is the case where there's more than one stdin
17:00:40 <Norm> Richard: That's only if we only allow stdin on a process.
17:00:51 <Norm> Murray: If we allow each step to have stdin/stdout, that step can also have other inputs.
17:01:45 <Norm> Richard: Unix actually has a whole bunch of file descriptors, 0, 1, 2, and with sufficient hackery, you can actually read from 5 without ever giving it a name.
17:01:55 <Norm> Alex: We need a white board for this.
17:02:51 <Norm> Norm asks for concrete examples
17:03:42 <Norm> Nearly out of time
17:03:48 <Norm> zakim, next agendum
17:03:48 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Any other business?" taken up [from Norm]
17:04:04 <Zakim> -Murray_Maloney
17:04:04 <Norm> None
17:04:05 <Norm> Adjourned
17:04:05 <Zakim> -Norm
17:04:06 <Zakim> -rlopes
17:04:07 <Zakim> -ebruchez
17:04:08 <alexmilowski> alexmilowski has left #xproc
17:04:09 <Zakim> -Alessandro_Vernet
17:04:10 <Zakim> -AndrewF
17:04:11 <Zakim> -PGrosso
17:04:13 <Zakim> -richard
17:04:15 <Zakim> -Alex_Milowski
17:04:17 <Zakim> -Vikas
17:04:18 <Zakim> XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended
17:04:19 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.408.705.aaaa, Norm, Alessandro_Vernet, [IPcaller], Vikas, rlopes, Murray_Maloney, [ArborText], PGrosso, Alex_Milowski, richard, AndrewF, ebruchez
17:04:27 <PGrosso> PGrosso has left #xproc
17:10:45 <Alessandro> Alessandro has left #xproc
17:11:14 <Norm> rrsagent, make logs member readable
17:11:14 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make logs member readable', Norm.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:11:20 <Norm> zakim, make logs public
17:11:20 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make logs public', Norm
17:11:26 <Norm> rrsagent, make logs public
17:11:37 <Norm> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:11:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/02/16-xproc-minutes.html Norm
17:12:10 <Norm> rrsagent, make logs public
17:12:21 <Norm> rrsagent, make minutes public
17:12:21 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', Norm.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:12:25 <Norm> Grr
17:12:33 <Norm> rrsagent, make logs public
17:16:17 <Norm> rrsagent, bye
17:16:17 <RRSAgent> I see no action items