14:58:00 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #databinding
14:58:00 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-databinding-irc
14:58:02 <trackbot-ng> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:58:02 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #databinding
14:58:04 <pauld> zakim, code?
14:58:04 <Zakim> sorry, pauld, I don't know what conference this is
14:58:04 <trackbot-ng> Zakim, this will be DBWG
14:58:05 <trackbot-ng> Meeting: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Working Group Teleconference
14:58:05 <trackbot-ng> Date: 18 March 2008
14:58:05 <Zakim> ok, trackbot-ng, I see WS_DBWG()10:00AM already started
14:58:08 <pauld> zakim, code?
14:58:10 <Zakim> the conference code is 3294 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), pauld
14:58:22 <Zakim> + +0791888aaaa
14:58:27 <pauld> chair: pauld
14:58:42 <pauld> zakim, aaaa
14:58:42 <Zakim> I don't understand 'aaaa', pauld
14:58:52 <pauld> zakim, aaaa is me
14:59:04 <Zakim> +pauld; got it
14:59:16 <pauld> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:59:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see George_Cowe, pauld
14:59:38 <Zakim> +Yves
15:01:49 <pauld> Topic: Detection
15:04:11 <pauld> pauld: built annotation
15:04:45 <JonC> JonC has joined #databinding
15:05:01 <pauld> .. see the examples and collection pages
15:05:13 <pauld> gcowe: will look at optionally adding it to the service
15:06:06 <pauld> minutes from 2008-3-11 teleconference 2008-2-19 teleconference approved
15:06:34 <pauld> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/examples/6/09/DateAttribute/
15:09:20 <pauld> Topic: ISSUE-2: test suite
15:09:40 <pauld> gcowe: the XBinder guys picked up an old copy of the testsuite and sent results
15:09:44 <pauld> pauld: cool!
15:10:05 <pauld> gcowe: we've added a load more tests, so I sent them a new copy
15:10:17 <Zakim> +JohnC
15:10:17 <pauld> pauld: that's great. thx!
15:10:56 <pauld> zakim, +johnc is really jonc
15:10:56 <Zakim> sorry, pauld, I do not recognize a party named '+johnc'
15:11:03 <pauld> zakim, johnc is really jonc
15:11:06 <Zakim> +jonc; got it
15:12:00 <pauld> pauld: collection is now checked in with annotation!
15:12:27 <pauld> pauld: what's next for the test suite?
15:13:07 <pauld> gcowe: not a lot, we've run the tools we can, half the toolkits missing, Adrian had the ability to run them
15:13:23 <pauld> pauld: but for basic, how do we stand?
15:13:55 <gcowe> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/report/basic.html
15:16:03 <pauld> pauld: I can rerun SOAP4R and ZSI, can someone help with WCF
15:16:14 <Yves> I am doing gsoap c and c++
15:18:14 <pauld> Topic:  Charter Renewal?
15:18:59 <pauld> pauld: dependent on publishing Last Call documents
15:19:19 <pauld> yves: we should be able to ask for another six months
15:20:22 <pauld> Topic: Status of Basic Patterns
15:20:48 <pauld> pauld: thanks George for the work on differencing
15:21:48 <pauld> .. status section needs updating further
15:23:14 <pauld> Topic: Last Call comments from Schema WG
15:23:16 <pauld> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsd-databinding-comments/2008Feb/0000.html
15:24:18 <pauld> Topic: lc-xsd-5 
15:24:30 <pauld> """
15:24:32 <pauld> * Schema documents vs. schemas: Following up on the point above, there are 
15:24:33 <pauld>  schema documents that do not stand on their own in defining a schema 
15:24:35 <pauld> that's useful for validation.  For example, if a schema document merely 
15:24:36 <pauld> defines a complext Type T as being derived by extension from type B with 
15:24:38 <pauld> attribute A, then you don't really know what the type is until you find 
15:24:39 <pauld> the base type B, and that may well be in a different schema document. 
15:24:41 <pauld> Maybe there is element content in effective type T.  If there is an 
15:24:42 <pauld> element E declared of type T, then what does the requirement to "[expose] 
15:24:44 <pauld> all of the [XML 1.0] element node and attribute node content described by 
15:24:45 <pauld> the originating [XML Schema 1.0] document" mean?  The problem is that it's 
15:24:47 <pauld> not really schema documents that directly call for or don't call for 
15:24:48 <pauld> content in documents to be validated.  Schema documents contribute to the 
15:24:50 <pauld> construction of a schema (formally defined at [4]), which in turn contains 
15:24:51 <pauld>  element declarations, etc. that can be used to require or allow content 
15:24:53 <pauld> in  documents to be validated.  >>It seems that some serious thought is 
15:24:54 <pauld> needed  as to whether it's schema documents or schemas that would conform 
15:24:56 <pauld> to the  databinding specification.<<  In any case, referring to the 
15:24:57 <pauld> element or  attribute content "described by a schema document" is not just 
15:24:59 <pauld> too  informal; as suggested above, it's likely that you really want to 
15:25:01 <pauld> talk  about the element or attribute content allowed by a schema. 
15:25:03 <pauld> Conversely, you could more clearly define a set of rules relating to 
15:25:05 <pauld> individual schema documents if that's what you really intend.
15:25:07 <pauld> """
15:25:33 <pauld> pauld: this is related to the infoset (v) document issue. It would be much harder to write test tools for this
15:25:50 <pauld> yves: we're testing for bytes on the wire, not at the infoset level
15:27:18 <pauld> pauld: the only way I could see this working is if they had an XML format for their infoset or even the PSVI
15:27:30 <pauld> pauld: anyone want to support this comment?
15:27:35 <pauld> *crickets*
15:28:16 <pauld> RESOLUTION: lc-xsd-5 rejected
15:29:04 <pauld> Topic: lc-xsd-6
15:29:06 <pauld> """
15:29:19 <pauld> * Section 1.4 says that conformance requires that an implementation: "MUST 
15:29:21 <pauld> be able to consume any well-formed [XML 1.0] document which satisfies 
15:29:22 <pauld> local-schema validity against the originating [XML Schema 1.0] document 
15:29:24 <pauld> exposing all of the [XML 1.0] element node and attribute node content in 
15:29:25 <pauld> the data model."  Again, local-schema validity is not a relation defined 
15:29:27 <pauld> on the pair {instance, schema document}, it is (presuming you indicate 
15:29:28 <pauld> which type or element declaration to start with) defined on the pair 
15:29:30 <pauld> {instance, schema}" 
15:29:31 <pauld> """
15:30:23 <pauld> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/basic/basic.html#assert-ProduceXML
15:31:18 <pauld> pauld: anyone feel like they have better words for this assertion?
15:32:21 <pauld> *crickets*
15:33:17 <pauld> gcowe: let's ask them for better text!
15:33:30 <pauld> ACTION: pdowney to ask the Schema WG for advice
15:33:30 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-129 - Ask the Schema WG for advice [on Paul Downey - due 2008-03-25].
15:34:10 <pauld> pauld: so we accept the comment, but don't have the skills to address it to schema WG's satisfaction
15:34:18 <pauld> Topic: lc-xsd-7
15:34:55 <pauld> * Section 2:  "The [XPath 2.0] expression is located from an [XML Schema 
15:34:56 <pauld> 1.0] element node which may be the document element, or an element 
15:34:58 <pauld> contained inside an [XML 1.0] document such as [WSDL 2.0] description." 
15:34:59 <pauld> It's not quite clear what is meant in saying that an "[XPath  2.0] 
15:35:01 <pauld> expression is located from".  Is this trying to establish the "Context 
15:35:02 <pauld> Node" for the XPath expression as being the node of the <xsd:schema> 
15:35:04 <pauld> element? If so, we recommend you say that more clearly, preferably with 
15:35:05 <pauld> hyperlinks to the pertinent parts of the XPath Recommendation.  Also, the 
15:35:07 <pauld> phrase "may not" can be read as prohibiting the case where the element 
15:35:08 <pauld> note is the document node.  I suspect you meant "need not".  Finally, [XML 
15:35:10 <pauld>  Schema 1.0] element node isn't a term that appears in the XSD 
15:35:11 <pauld> Recommendation;  did you mean the "root element information item of the 
15:35:13 <pauld> schema document"?
15:35:50 <pauld> pauld: accept "need not" change to text
15:36:33 <pauld> pauld: suggest a note to say "this is to establish the Context node for the XPath expression"
15:37:14 <pauld> pauld: seems reasonable to link to the XPath recommedation
15:38:04 <pauld> RESOLUTION: accepted lc-xsd-7 with suggested text changes
15:38:30 <pauld> Topic: lc-xsd-8
15:38:33 <pauld> * Sections 2.x:  The phrase "An [XML 1.0] document exibits the XXXXX 
15:38:35 <pauld> pattern...." is used repeatedly in these sections and their descendents. 
15:38:36 <pauld> See comments about about need to refer to "schema documents", if that's 
15:38:38 <pauld> what's intended.
15:38:49 <pauld> pauld: looks like the documents (v) infoset comment again
15:39:22 <pauld> RESOLUTION: rejected as for lc-xsd-5
15:40:50 <pauld> yves: is that the instance document?
15:41:48 <pauld> pauld: we could be clearer that it's a WSDL 1.0, 2.0, Schema, whatever, but balooning the boilerplate isn't desirable
15:42:38 <pauld> pauld: we already have "2.1 Schema Element
15:42:39 <pauld> The xs:schema element MAY be the document element, but MAY also appear within other descriptions such as a [WSDL 2.0] or [WSDL 1.1] document. †"
15:43:40 <pauld> yves: text tied up better to the "An [XML 1.0] document exhibits the"
15:44:18 <pauld> s/RESOLUTION: rejected as for lc-xsd-5/RESOLUTION: accepted lc-xsd-5 as requiring clarification/
15:46:13 <pauld> Topic: lc-xsd-9
15:46:16 <pauld> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xmlschema-patterns-20071031/#group-SchemaElement
15:46:45 <pauld> * Section 2.1.2: talks about qualified local elements, but the sample 
15:46:46 <pauld> schema contains no local elements.
15:46:57 <pauld> pauld: we could change the example to include local elements
15:47:19 <pauld> gcowe: what does that mean for the test suite? is this one excluded?
15:47:36 <pauld> pauld: I suspect this is something we've excluded, so it could be safe
15:48:28 <pauld> could risk introducing an advanced pattern
15:48:59 <pauld> RESOLUTION: accepted lc-xsd-9, will expand example
15:50:42 <pauld> example something like:
15:50:43 <pauld>   <xs:element name="echoDateAttribute">
15:50:45 <pauld>       <xs:complexType>
15:50:46 <pauld>          <xs:sequence>
15:50:48 <pauld>             <xs:element ref="ex:dateAttribute"/>
15:50:49 <pauld>          </xs:sequence>
15:50:51 <pauld>       </xs:complexType>
15:50:52 <pauld>    </xs:element
15:51:31 <pauld> gcowe: will update example
15:52:19 <pauld> Topic: lc-xsd-10
15:52:25 <pauld> * Section 2.1.6: BlockDefault.  This pattern seems to imply that 
15:52:26 <pauld> substitutions and or derivations are blocked if the @blockDefault 
15:52:28 <pauld> attribute is provided, but in fact that attribute carries a value that can 
15:52:29 <pauld> selectively enable or disable blocking for any combination of extension, 
15:52:31 <pauld> restriction, and substitution.  It seems unlikely that the rule of 
15:52:32 <pauld> interest is really that the attribute is present.  Is that what's 
15:52:34 <pauld> intended, or did you wish to actually check for certain values of the 
15:52:35 <pauld> blockDefault.  Note, in particular, that an explicit blockDefault="" has 
15:52:37 <pauld> the same semantic as leaving out the attribute entirely.
15:52:38 <pauld> I regret that I did not have time to review the remainder of the patterns 
15:52:40 <pauld> in the draft, but I would assume that the above comments would be 
15:52:41 <pauld> representative of what would be found for other patterns.
15:52:43 <pauld> jonc: mea culpa!
15:53:42 <pauld> jonc: pattern needs tightening up, 
15:54:54 <pauld> pauld: it's been moved to Advanced anyway
15:55:32 <pauld> ACTION: jcalladi to sort out BlockDefault patterns
15:55:33 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-130 - Sort out BlockDefault patterns [on Jonathan Calladine - due 2008-03-25].
15:56:18 <pauld> RESOLUTION: accepted lc-xsd-10, BlockDefault has been moved to Advanced
15:56:34 <pauld> Topic: 
15:56:57 <pauld> s/Topic:/Topic: lc-xsd-11 Editorial Concerns/
15:57:19 <pauld> The databinding draft is very long, and a lot of it is devoted to what is 
15:57:21 <pauld> ultimately boilerplate.  Consider the targetNamespace pattern.  It is 
15:57:22 <pauld> introduced with nearly 1/2 page of multicolor writeup, but really all it's 
15:57:24 <pauld>  trying to say seems to be:  This pattern requires that the schema 
15:57:25 <pauld> document have a targetNamespace attribute with an absolute URI as its 
15:57:27 <pauld> value.  That  could be said much more clearly and concisely.  I think the 
15:57:28 <pauld> draft would be  much more effective if the patterns were introduced in a 
15:57:30 <pauld> manner that was  as concise and clear as possible.   It's not helpful to 
15:57:31 <pauld> repeat over and  over "An [XML 1.0] document exhibits....", and as noted 
15:57:33 <pauld> above, the example  schema could be made shorter and clearer.  Finally, 
15:57:34 <pauld> what would be most  helpful for a pattern like this is to explain ">>why<< 
15:57:36 <pauld> an absolute URI"?  The Schema recommendation points to the XML Namespaces 
15:57:37 <pauld> recommendation for  the definition of a namespace name, and that in turn 
15:57:39 <pauld> requires a URI  Reference [5], not an Absolute URI.  So, it would be 
15:57:40 <pauld> useful in general if  some of the boilerplate were eliminated and the 
15:57:42 <pauld> sections made much shorter  and easier to read, but conversely it would be 
15:57:43 <pauld> useful to say a bit about  what makes the pattern interesting.  Explain 
15:57:45 <pauld> briefly if there's a reason  why absolute namespace URIs are interesting, 
15:57:46 <pauld> or did you really just mean  this pattern to be "a non-absent 
15:57:48 <pauld> targetNamespace is available"?
15:57:59 <pauld> pauld: boilerplate?
15:58:29 <pauld> pauld: it's not a very human readable spec!
15:58:48 <pauld> gcowe: it is computer generated
15:59:03 <pauld> jonc: hard to avoid
15:59:37 <pauld> pauld: without a concrete proposal, I'm going to push back. The work is in our testing and detector ..
16:00:21 <pauld> pauld; >>>why<<<
16:00:29 <pauld> s/;/:/
16:01:18 <pauld> jonc: discussion was it's opening the flood gates, and this is for the primer
16:01:46 <pauld> pauld: I know, I'm not keen on specs which justify themselves
16:02:08 <pauld> pauld: we're pretty clear why a pattern is Basic or Advanced
16:02:40 <pauld> pauld: we're not clear on how patterns come about
16:03:13 <pauld> .. sounds like something we could add as editorial text, volunteers?
16:04:05 <pauld> pauld: we've done a lot of work in terms of test tools and suites, and that' the best approach IMO
16:05:05 <pauld> jonc: was in Noah's position, but it's seems best left to additional documents and discussion, on a wiki?
16:05:52 <pauld> pauld: XML was famously wafted by Tim Bray as a small spec, then the first thing he did was publish an "annotated version". You're free to do the same :)
16:07:02 <pauld> pauld: I think its' fair comment to say why a pattern is interesting. Hmm. Will look at that generically in the introduction.
16:08:31 <pauld> RESOULTION: accepted lc-xsd-11 in part, will add more introduction text
16:09:13 <pauld> Topic: Status of Publication
16:09:48 <pauld> pauld: all of the comments accepted are editorial, any objections to incorporating the text and then going ahead to Last Call as planned?
16:09:55 <pauld> None heard
16:11:13 <pauld> pickup again next tuesday
16:12:01 <Zakim> -pauld
16:12:02 <Zakim> -jonc
16:12:04 <Zakim> -Yves
16:12:06 <Zakim> -George_Cowe
16:12:07 <Zakim> WS_DBWG()10:00AM has ended
16:12:09 <Zakim> Attendees were George_Cowe, +0791888aaaa, pauld, Yves, jonc
16:12:16 <pauld> RRSagent, generate minutes
16:12:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-databinding-minutes.html pauld
16:17:02 <pauld> rrsagent, make logs public
17:36:03 <Zakim> Zakim has left #databinding