IRC log of tsdtf on 2006-09-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:27:23 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tsdtf
12:27:23 [RRSAgent]
logging to
12:27:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tsdtf
12:27:36 [shadi]
zakim, this will be TSD
12:27:36 [Zakim]
ok, shadi; I see WAI_TSDTF()8:30AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
12:27:44 [shadi]
meeting: TSD TF
12:27:49 [Christophe]
zakim, will you let me in today?
12:27:49 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, Christophe.
12:27:54 [shadi]
chair: CarlosV, Christophe
12:27:58 [shadi]
regrets: Tim
12:28:09 [CarlosI]
CarlosI has joined #tsdtf
12:28:13 [Christophe]
Zakim, that doesn't sound reassuring.
12:28:13 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'that doesn't sound reassuring', Christophe
12:28:45 [shadi]
12:30:05 [Zakim]
WAI_TSDTF()8:30AM has now started
12:30:07 [Zakim]
12:31:04 [Zakim]
12:31:33 [Zakim]
12:31:41 [carlosV]
carlosV has joined #tsdtf
12:31:55 [shadi]
zakim, ipcalles is really Chris
12:31:55 [Zakim]
sorry, shadi, I do not recognize a party named 'ipcalles'
12:32:00 [shadi]
zakim, ipcaller is really Chris
12:32:00 [Zakim]
+Chris; got it
12:32:12 [Zakim]
12:32:30 [Zakim]
12:32:33 [shadi]
zakim, ??p2 is really CarlosI
12:32:33 [Zakim]
+CarlosI; got it
12:33:16 [Zakim]
12:35:54 [shadi]
scribe: Shadi
12:35:58 [shadi]
scribenick: Shadi
12:37:39 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has joined #tsdtf
12:37:41 [shadi]
agenda+ TCDL version F
12:37:51 [shadi]
agenda+ Start of test production phase
12:38:05 [shadi]
zakim, take up agendum 1
12:38:05 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "TCDL version F" taken up [from shadi]
12:38:43 [shadi]
12:41:16 [shadi]
resolution: no objection on the global structure of TCDL
12:42:23 [shadi]
CV: issues in the metadata?
12:43:14 [shadi]
CS: in BenToWeb we used DC terms of the year 2002 (previous version), it has been changed as of january
12:43:29 [shadi]
...we can now use dc:date and dc:description
12:43:48 [shadi]
CV: dc:description is not in the "formalMetadata" section
12:44:25 [shadi]
CV: can one have markup in dc:description?
12:44:36 [shadi]
CS: yes, can derive any datatype
12:48:18 [shadi]
SAZ: we need to describe the datatype we use, whichever it is (and XSD should be ok)
12:48:37 [shadi]
resolution: no objections to using dc:date (instead of just date), with datatype xs:date
12:49:52 [shadi]
CV: any objections to "Extension"?
12:50:12 [shadi]
SAZ: yes, the extension model is not adequate
12:54:06 [shadi]
CS: want to avoid having extension all over the place, just one single point of extension
12:55:14 [shadi]
SAZ: don't see the benefit of chosing this model, could equally well have parsers simply ignore elements and attributes they don't know
12:55:31 [shadi]
CS: this is one way of doing it
12:55:56 [shadi]
SAZ: agree, philosophical discussion. what is the group preference?
12:56:17 [shadi]
CI: agree with SAZ, no point of restricting the extension model
12:57:43 [shadi]
CR: no point of restricting the extension model
12:58:05 [shadi]
SAZ: just to be clear, both methods provide a way of extending the core vocabulary
12:58:29 [shadi]
CS: the current proposal is to extend at the end of each element at a well defined extension point
12:59:14 [shadi]
VE: not sure which method is better. the method used in BenToWeb proved useful but there may be a better approach too
12:59:52 [shadi]
CV: both methods work, prefer to keep it as is
13:00:27 [shadi] the one hand SAZ and CI wanted to restrict the language, and now taking a liberal approach
13:01:18 [shadi]
CI: we have a specific focus, so don't need an extension model
13:01:42 [shadi]
...once we have a stable language, we won't need extension
13:02:02 [shadi]
...but if you insist on having an extension model, then prefer to have it as open as possible
13:04:14 [Zakim]
13:04:32 [shadi]
SAZ: agree we have a specific focus so propose to have as small vocabulary as possible
13:04:46 [CarlosI]
i'll be back
13:04:51 [shadi]
...on the other hand, need to be as flexible as possible for the future
13:05:03 [Zakim]
13:05:13 [shadi]
...for example with EARL and TCDL
13:05:53 [shadi]
zakim, ??p2 is really CarlosI
13:05:53 [Zakim]
+CarlosI; got it
13:07:43 [shadi]
CV: what is the resolution? do we add more extension points?
13:08:22 [shadi]
SAZ: what is the problem of not defining extension points and just ignoring unknown elements/attributes
13:08:42 [shadi]
....note, this is not the BenToWeb spec, just the convention of this TF
13:09:03 [shadi]
CS: it is good to be flexible but comes at the cost of accurate validation
13:11:01 [shadi]
CS: also, any added elements should be in a separate namespace
13:11:34 [shadi]
SAZ: agree, not good practice to modify someones elses schema
13:12:55 [shadi]
CV: we expect the extensions to be content negotiation (HTTP request/response) and pointers, not sure we need others
13:18:56 [shadi]
SAZ: for example, if you build a parser for the current TF vocabulary, it understands dc:creator and a bunch of other elements
13:19:15 [shadi]
...however, if you feed it metadata from the BenToWeb project
13:19:39 [shadi]
...which also contains additional elements such as dc:contributor
13:19:55 [shadi]
...validation will fail and it will reject the metadata
13:20:24 [shadi]
...even though dc:contributor information is also in the BenToWeb metadata files
13:21:33 [shadi]
s/dc:contributor information/dc:creator information
13:21:35 [shadi]
SAZ: if the parser would simply ignore unknown elements dc:contributor, then it could filter out the information it needs
13:24:43 [shadi]
CV: two options - 1) leave it as it is, or 2) add more extension points
13:25:11 [shadi]
CS: add more points where expect we may need them
13:26:51 [shadi]
SAZ: 3rd option is to tell parsers to simply ignore elements or attributes they don't know
13:27:29 [shadi]
CS: then you can extend anything and anywhere
13:28:42 [shadi]
CI: yes, this is how many vocabularies are defined like HTML etc
13:29:11 [shadi]
CV: this makes validation messy, not really the concept of XMLS
13:29:54 [shadi]
SAZ: there are certain constriants, like cardinality
13:30:21 [shadi]
CS: the new elements will be from different namespaces
13:32:20 [Christophe]
<xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" />
13:32:52 [shadi]
CS: this will allow the core vocabulary to be validated, and additional elements from other namespaces as extension
13:34:29 [shadi]
resolution: two options - the one described directly above, or the "Extension" method. this is for voting next week
13:34:31 [Zakim]
13:34:32 [Zakim]
13:34:33 [Zakim]
13:34:34 [Zakim]
13:34:34 [Zakim]
13:34:36 [Zakim]
13:34:37 [Zakim]
WAI_TSDTF()8:30AM has ended
13:34:39 [Zakim]
Attendees were Shadi, Christophe_Strobbe, Chris, CarlosV, CarlosI, Vangelis
13:34:40 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has left #tsdtf
13:34:46 [shadi]
zakim, bye
13:34:46 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tsdtf
13:34:51 [shadi]
rrsagent, make logs world
13:34:55 [shadi]
rrsagent, make minutes
13:34:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate shadi
13:34:57 [shadi]
rrsagent, make logs world
13:35:02 [shadi]
rrsagent, bye
13:35:02 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items