14:44:47 RRSAgent has joined #xproc 14:44:48 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/05/25-xproc-irc 14:44:55 Meeting: XML Processing Model WG 14:44:55 Scribe: Norm 14:44:55 ScribeNick: Norm 14:44:55 Date: 25 May 2006 14:44:55 Chair: Norm 14:44:56 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/05/25-agenda.html 14:50:58 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has now started 14:51:05 +moz 14:51:20 Uhm, it's xx:51, is it not? 14:51:25 You're a bit early :-) 14:51:38 yep ;) 14:51:41 Ok 14:56:09 PGrosso has joined #xproc 14:59:11 richard has joined #xproc 14:59:53 +Alessandro_Vernet 15:00:28 +[ArborText] 15:01:12 +Norm 15:01:23 +??P9 15:01:32 zakim, ? is richard 15:01:32 +richard; got it 15:01:54 ndw_ has joined #xproc 15:01:54 ht has joined #xproc 15:02:09 zakim, please call ht-781 15:02:09 ok, ht; the call is being made 15:02:10 zakim, who's on the phone? 15:02:11 +Ht 15:02:12 On the phone I see moz, Alessandro_Vernet, PGrosso, Norm, richard, Ht (muted) 15:03:02 rrsagent, pointer? 15:03:02 See http://www.w3.org/2006/05/25-xproc-irc#T15-03-02 15:03:16 rrsagent, make log world visible 15:03:16 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make log world visible', Norm. Try /msg RRSAgent help 15:03:23 AndrewF has joined #xproc 15:03:31 rrsagent, set logs world visible 15:03:31 I'm logging. I don't understand 'set logs world visible', Norm. Try /msg RRSAgent help 15:03:39 rrsagent, set logs world-visible 15:03:58 +??P0 15:04:04 zakim, ??P0 is Andrew 15:04:04 +Andrew; got it 15:05:10 Present: Norm, Mohamed, Alessandro, Paul, Richard, Henry, Andrew 15:05:21 Regrets: Michael, Rui 15:05:31 +Alex_Milowski 15:05:37 Topic: Accept this agenda? 15:05:37 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/05/25-agenda.html 15:05:41 Present: Norm, Mohamed, Alessandro, Paul, Richard, Henry, Andrew, Alex 15:05:48 alexmilowski has joined #xproc 15:05:53 Accepted. 15:05:59 Topic: Accept minutes from the previous teleconference? 15:06:00 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/05/18-minutes.html 15:06:10 Accepted. 15:06:15 Topic: Next meeting: 1 June telcon 15:06:15 Any regrets? 15:06:25 None given. 15:06:28 Topic: Face-to-face: 2-4 Aug 2006. 15:06:50 -> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38398/XProcFTF2/ 15:06:57 -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/08/02-04-f2f.html 15:07:04 Topic: Mini "Technical Plenary" in January? 15:08:17 Norm proposes that we don't need to meet in January since we will have met in August. 15:09:02 We'll revisit if it actually happens, it's still just in the planning stages today. 15:09:11 Topic: Review of open action items 15:09:15 1. A-13-01: MSM to draft a complete table; ETA: 15 June 2006 15:09:18 Continued. 15:09:26 Topic: XProc syntax 15:09:32 Email threads: 15:09:41 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2006May/0087.html 15:09:47 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2006May/0072.html 15:09:57 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2006May/0041.html 15:10:04 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2006May/0039.html 15:10:26 Norm opens the floor for discussion. 15:11:04 Alex: Can you provide a synopis? 15:11:33 Norm mumbles a bit 15:12:12 We seem to be reaching consensus on the non-directed syntax as our first WD syntax 15:12:45 Henry: You mean the generic syntax, right? Names like p:process and p:input and p:output. 15:12:46 Yes. 15:13:28 Variables/parameters/inputs/outputs share a single symbol space 15:14:13 Parameters are strings 15:16:15 References in one direction, which Norm describes badly 15:16:25 Richard: I'd been thinking that outputs defined labels and input referred to them 15:19:11 Some discussion, poorly recorded by the hapless scribe 15:20:20 The outstanding issue is XPath references to input documents 15:22:00 Can an XPath expression refer to multiple in-scope input documents? Or only to a single document. 15:22:23 Alessandro: We also seem to have consensus on p:input/p:with-input, etc. 15:23:16 Richard: If all the inputs are available as documents that you can refer to by name in XPath expressions, this results in a hidden dependency within XPaths. 15:23:36 ...In order to determine which components have to have been evaulated, you have to peek into the XPath to see what inputs it relies on. 15:23:55 ...That seems to be a minor implementation annoyance but a good way of hiding dependencies. 15:24:09 ...which is a bad thing. 15:25:01 ...It means that two things in apparently unrelated branches of the pipeline may have to wait for each other because of the XPath expression one uses. 15:25:19 ...It really is just a syntax issue on one level in that you could draw all the lines in explicitly. It's just that it's burried deep down in the syntax. 15:26:04 could we uses a "uses=" attributes 15:26:52 Alex: Are we assuming that the variables and parameters share the same symbol space. 15:27:46 Alex: If they share the same symbol space, then there are conversion issues. What happens if you attempt to select a node from a string? 15:28:21 Richard: I think the issue of strings is a red herring. Though I agree that we should restrict them to strings now, that doesn't mean we can't make them more complex in the future. 15:30:18 Richard: If the functionality that's needed is the ability to refer to multiple documents, it could be done more explicitly. There could be a syntax that bound variables to the names of outputs of other steps. That at least would make it expicit which ones were being used. 15:30:54 Mohamed: The idea (uses= from before) is to make it explicit. If they are defined on other points in the document, then maybe they are not visually explicit even if they're technically explicit. 15:31:54 Alex: In XSLT, variables and parameters can be bound to a variety of things and that's useful. The typing issues come into play. I might want to bind inputs to parameters, for example. 15:32:26 Norm: That comes back to the point earlier about parameters being strings. 15:33:25 Richard: I agree that it would be nice to go beyond strings for parameters, but we can stick with strings for now. 15:33:37 Alex: Do we need this distinction of variables and parameters? 15:33:58 Richard: I don't think we've agreed that there are any variables yet. 15:36:35 Alex describes his p:let proposal 15:37:21 Richard: Is this different in any way from a sub-pipeline? 15:37:44 Alex: No, not really. The distinction between variables and parameters seems just not useful to me. 15:39:08 Alex: You need to be able to manipulate parameters just like you can manipulate inputs and outputs in the pipeline 15:41:41 Alex: Let provides a scope 15:43:01 Alex: Let is also hierarchical, it has inputs and outputs. 15:43:55 Richard: It seems to me that the advantage isn't the scoping as such, put a place to do some calculation on some existing parameters to get a new one. 15:44:38 Alex: If you're calculating a parameter with an input, you need to know what its dependent on. 15:44:51 for me let is a class definition 15:45:42 Alex: I'm quite happy if it can be done as a sub-pipeline, but I don't want to have to call out to some other file. 15:46:26 Norm: I don't think we've discussed that at all. 15:46:34 Alex: This could easily be some variation of a sub-pipeline call. 15:47:27 Richard: In lisp, let is implemented as a macro. It expands into a lambda that's passed some parameters. 15:47:43 ...We've been saying that a let in our pipeline might be equivalent to a sub-pipeline and provides a place to bind some new input parameters. 15:48:08 ...It would be nice if this were really true and if you could say that let was equivalent to this pipeline construct. 15:49:41 +1 for using few keywords in Xproc (for p:let to become a p:subpipeline or rich-subpipeline) 15:49:48 Richard: I hadn't imagined that sub-pipelines would be transparent, so let would bind to a sub-pipeline with the right declarations for inputs and outputs. 15:50:01 Norm: I see. 15:50:49 Norm: Let's try to come back around to XPaths over input documents. 15:52:08 Norm: I have reservations about the refer-to-inputs-as-variables style and Richard has given some good technical reasons why it makes analysis harder. Does anyone want to argue in favor of it? 15:52:12 No one speaks. 15:53:00 using namespaces "io:foo" and "p:foo" 15:53:10 will this be a solution ? 15:53:54 Alex: What if we had parameter bindings as children of the p:input? 15:55:58 ACTION: Norm to record the open issue about what an XPath expression over a document sequence means 15:57:16 Proposal: XPath expressions will be evaluated over exactly one document, syntactic details unresolved. 15:57:28 s/document/input/ 15:57:57 Alessandro: I think it's hard to record a consensus on that because Jeni isn't here. 15:58:19 ...Personally, this is what we've implemented, so I kind of like XPath expressions evaluated over a single document. 15:58:51 Norm: I'll postpone the question for a week. 16:00:18 Norm expresses a desire to have a completed first WD before the f2f. 16:00:26 Topic: Any other business? 16:00:29 None. 16:00:31 Adjourned. 16:00:37 -Alessandro_Vernet 16:00:39 -richard 16:00:40 -Norm 16:00:40 -Alex_Milowski 16:00:41 -PGrosso 16:00:43 -moz 16:00:44 -Andrew 16:00:45 alexmilowski has left #xproc 16:00:51 PGrosso has left #xproc 16:01:18 -Ht 16:01:19 XML_PMWG()11:00AM has ended 16:01:20 Attendees were moz, Alessandro_Vernet, PGrosso, Norm, richard, Ht, Andrew, Alex_Milowski 16:13:13 rrsagent, please draft minutes 16:13:13 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/05/25-xproc-minutes.html Norm 16:16:41 Zakim, bye 16:16:41 Zakim has left #xproc 16:20:27 Huh? I do 16:21:00 !! 16:21:19 just saw please draft minutes... 16:21:21 What can't you read? 16:21:33 s/read/access/ 16:21:55 That just means make "draft" minutes as opposed to "final, approved" minutes 16:22:11 You can access http://www.w3.org/2006/05/25-xproc-minutes.html 16:22:30 But note that the official minutes will appear at http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/05/25-minutes.html in a little bit 16:22:31 sorry didn't try to read anything just was wondering that you usually call "please draft minutes", then "make then world wide visible" 16:25:19 Oh, sorry. 16:25:25 I made them world-visible a lot earlier in the call 16:25:47 Because I had IRC problems and wanted to look at the raw log to see if my attempt to setup the title, chair, scribe, etc. had gone through 16:26:27 oh yeh I see it now 17:04:08 avernet has joined #xproc