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 http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-tsdtf-irc
- 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]
- agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2006Sep/0021.html
- 12:30:05 [Zakim]
- WAI_TSDTF()8:30AM has now started
- 12:30:07 [Zakim]
- +Shadi
- 12:31:04 [Zakim]
- +Christophe_Strobbe
- 12:31:33 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 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]
- +??P2
- 12:32:30 [Zakim]
- +CarlosV
- 12:32:33 [shadi]
- zakim, ??p2 is really CarlosI
- 12:32:33 [Zakim]
- +CarlosI; got it
- 12:33:16 [Zakim]
- +Vangelis
- 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]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2006Sep/att-0019/BenToWeb_TCDL_W3C_Submission_DraftF.html
- 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]
- ...one 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]
- -CarlosI
- 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]
- +??P2
- 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]
- -CarlosV
- 13:34:32 [Zakim]
- -Vangelis
- 13:34:33 [Zakim]
- -Chris
- 13:34:34 [Zakim]
- -CarlosI
- 13:34:34 [Zakim]
- -Christophe_Strobbe
- 13:34:36 [Zakim]
- -Shadi
- 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 http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-tsdtf-minutes.html shadi
- 13:34:57 [shadi]
- rrsagent, make logs world
- 13:35:02 [shadi]
- rrsagent, bye
- 13:35:02 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items