See also: IRC log
<pauld> scribe: JonC
Minutes 18/04/06 approved
WG is lagging behind chartered schedule
pauld will be re-issuing roadmap document soon
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/roadmap.html
pauld: we've a F2F in a couple of weeks - expect to discuss issues, the testsuite, and make a start on the advanced patterns. Ideally I'd like to move basic patterns to Last Call soon after. Biggest problem is going to be how do we know when we're done?
pauld: we don't have Tony with us and wanted to discuss expectations for his contibuted patterns.
pauld: please submit patterns and raise issues on the list to help set the Agenda, which I'll aim to do a week ahead of the F2F
Ajith: have been looking at Issue-12 again this week
Discussion of use of schematron for validation tool
pauld: ideal to have single schemtron schema that identifies patterns
pauld: latest editors' draft has {OPTIONAL} patterns and {REQUIRED} assertions.
Ajith: plan to develop this further over next week
pauld: ideal to have access to the tool from a web page, though not essential at this stage
pauld: ISSUE-35 and 12 closely related, don't anticipate looking at flagging "warnings" until we have a basic framework.
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/issues/33/
<pauld> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsd-databinding/2006Apr/0017.html
<pauld> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/databinding/issues/33
pauld: this was actually closed last week... d'oh, I'm working from the wrong agenda!
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/issues/32/
gcowe: ran tests against 3 tools. All treated element list as unbounded rather than a finite maxOccurs for validation
pauld: this means that tools will
most likely handle such a pattern
... suggest pattern can be included in basic document.
JonC: need 'design considerations' text to explain that validation may not be as expected
pauld: that proposal in a nutshell:
<pauld> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsd-databinding/2006Apr/0048
RESOLUTION:
ISSUE-32 CLOSED with pauld's proposal with design consideration to reflect validation issue
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/issues/34/
gcowe: we use schema with request and response documents sharing the same namespace but with seperate definitions for a shared element
pauld: as paul biron indicated it is valid to have element defintions split across multiple schemas
pauld: but combining these (schemas with duplication) in a schema or wsdl processor is likely to cause problems
pauld: schema component designator specification/technical note written to assist developers of processors, this may be useful in explaining how symbols are scoped.
<pauld> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-ref/
ACTION: pdowney to take ISSUE-32 to the WS-I Basic Profile WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/02-databinding-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-36 - Take ISSUE-32 to the WS-I Basic Profile WG [on Paul Downey - due 2006-05-09].
<inserted> Scribe: pauld
this issue goes above and beyond ISSUE-4 - collection of known databinding tools
jonc: within BT we have a set of
tools important to us - I added to that subset a list of
leading tools we see others using
... we need to ensure we're covering a good number of languages
and environments
george: interested to see list of tools linked into validation report
pauld: CR could help us here - I worry that we do all the work for all the different tools rather than getting individual vendors to buy into our framework
jonc: we need this indicative evidence when writing the spec
pauld: babbles .. what would be the cirteria for NOT including a tool in this list?
jonc: wants a representitive
list, having 6 Java tools wouldn't be as useful as one tool from each language
... enumerating some kits may flush out others. with the people
we have, 6 or so is all we're likely to achieve
... we need at the very least one leading commercial and Open Source tool from each language - does this make sense?
pauld: propose building a list of all known tools (ISSUE-4), and use the CR / interop report to reflect tools we used in writing the spec.
pauld: out of time, we'll pick this up again next week
thanks for scribing, jon!