W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > March 2006

Minutes for XProc WG telcon of 16 Mar 2006

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:10:20 -0500
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <878xranwn7.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See also: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/03/16-minutes.html

W3C[1]

                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

16 Mar 2006

   Agenda[2]

   See also: IRC log[3]

Attendees

   Present
           Paul, Rui, Murray, Alex, Henry, Alessandro, Norman

   Regrets
           Erik, Andrew, Michael, Richard (proxy to Henry)

   Chair
           Norm

   Scribe
           Norm

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Administrivia
         2. Accept this agenda?
         3. Accept minutes from the previous teleconference?
         4. Accept minutes from the face-to-face?
         5. Next meeting: 23 Mar telcon
         6. Technical
         7. XProc Requirements and Use Cases
         8. Conditionals or another issue
         9. Any any other business
     * Summary of Action Items

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  Administrivia

  Accept this agenda?

   -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/03/16-agenda.html[4]

   Murray asks about XInclude

   The input to XInclude is intended to be "the document on which XInclude is
   to be performed"

   Agenda accepted

  Accept minutes from the previous teleconference?

   -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/02/23-minutes.html[5]

   Accepted.

   Norm observes that Richard may have wanted more time at the f2f and
   encourages him to post any questions or concerns he finds

  Accept minutes from the face-to-face?

   http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/02/27-morning-minutes.html[6]

   http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/02/27-afternoon-minutes.html[7]

   http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/02/28-morning-minutes.html[8]

   http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/02/28-afternoon-minutes.html[9]

   Accepted.

  Next meeting: 23 Mar telcon

   Any regrets?

   None given

  Technical

  XProc Requirements and Use Cases

   -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langreq.html[10]

   Alex reports a few minor changes

   ->
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2006Mar/0017.html[11]

   Use case 5.6

   Norm suggests remove step 3 from the output example

   Use case 5.27

   This is a subtree/viewport use case

   Norm reports that it's clear to him

   Use case 5.28

   Alex will clarify the use of markers and transformations

   Murray suggests calling the marker a "stub" would help

   Murray: This use case is a bit prescriptive. But it's a use case not a
   requirement so it's ok.

   Alex: I don't care if we don't meet this use case exactly this way, but
   I'd like to be able to accomplish it

   Use case 5.29

   Alex: For something like XQuery, you might want to simply fail if you
   don't have the component
   ... But here, you could fall back to XSLT 1.0 if you didn't have 2.0

   See also 5.30.

   Use case 5.31

   Henry: We should consider the order of use cases, but perhaps not this
   week.
   ... I'd like an important aspect of 5.32 to be called out (see the comment
   in my email)
   ... The important point is that some of the PSVI properties have to
   survive across steps
   ... Note that there's no way to reorder these steps: this is the only
   order that works because the schema doesn't accept xml:base attributes,
   but the expansion requires xs:anyURI typed values.

   Use case 5.26

   Norm: I think we simply need some feedback from the DSDL folks about how
   validation and transformation relate and how much of that depends on
   pipelining.

   Henry: Step 7 is the interesting step in a use case that claims to be
   about validation

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to contact the DSDL folks about this use case
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/16-xproc-minutes.html#action01[12]]

   Alex: I don't understand why there's transformation in the validation use
   case
   ... Where's the 'I validated all the pieces but now I know the whole thing
   is valid' step?

   Murray: I think if we have a problem with the use cases, we can just put a
   comment in indicating an issue

   Alex reports that he was planning to make another pass

   On the question of order

   scribe:

   Murray: I guess the ordering rule is something I can't describe in detail,
   but basically the use cases that concern us most need to be up front. The
   use cases that expose issues that are addressed later should be organized
   for "progressive exposure"
   ... Put the 60% use cases first, then the remaining ones after and by the
   time you get to the last one, you're really way out on the edge

   Alex: Ok, that's pretty clear, I can take a stab with those directions.

   For next week hopefully, we'll have an improved DSDL use case, we'll have
   an improved table of use-case/requirement pairings, and a suggested order
   for the use cases and requirements.

   Norm: Personally, I think you should work on the table last because I
   think it could just be delted.

   Alex: Deleting it is one possibility.

   Murray: I think it should be possible to follow your nose from use cases
   to requirements and that's as far as I think we have to go
   ... We'll have to explore any requirements that don't have use cases

   Norm: I think it's really important to get a first working draft of this
   document out this month.
   ... So we should plan to vote on that next week or give a really concise
   summary of what needs to change so that we can vote on the 30th.

   General agreement.

   Alex: I'll try to go through with an editorial fine-toothed comb

   Murray: It'd be valuable to have 24-48 hours of frozen text before I do
   that

   Alex: I'll try to send it out for this later this week.

   Murray: For each of the requirements and use cases, I assume there's an
   ID. Can you expose what they are?

   Alex: Yes, I can do that.

   Norm: Any other comments?
   ... Ok, then go ahead and publish it as soon as you can Alex

  Conditionals or another issue

   Norm: In the general realm of conditional, it wasn't clear to me how to
   bind xpath expressions to a particular document
   ... I thought Alessandro's suggestion of binding the document to the
   conditional was a clever idea

   Murray: What about a test against three documents?

   Henry: Are you asking about a conditional that isn't based on the primary

   Norm tries to explain his question about conditionals

   Henry: I wish Richard was here. In Richard's ontology, all you have is
   pipes and components and you plug them toghether. I think his conception
   of the conditional component was one that had one input and no outputs and
   that was the conditonal flow.
   ... So the input to the conditional was the one against which the
   evaluation was performed

   Norm: I think it'd help to see an example like that

   Murray: Implicit in what I just heard from Henry was that there could be
   any number of conditional components.
   ... I could create a conditional that was derived from my own inference
   engine, for example, and make their determination based on that.
   ... We could offer a number of conditional components that behave in a
   variety of ways but we'll never cover all the possible scenarios.

   Norm: So it's a component that you can plug in and the component is used
   to branch on the conditional

   Murray: And the component might not return true or false it might set a
   bunch of different variables

   Norm: We'd have to work out how a component could set variables in the
   environment, which is something we've danced around

   Alex: It seems like there's a distinction here between things you can
   statically analyze and things that are input driven.

   Norm: Yep

   Alex: Even if we use a component to do that, which inputs does it use.

   Norm: We already have a story of how components take inputs
   ... That satisfies my desire to talk about conditionals, we've got more
   options on the table.

  Any any other business

   Murray asks about a face-to-face

   Murray offers to host a f2f north of Toronto either the week before or
   after Extreme

   Henry: After would work much better for me

   Norm: Murray will you post this in mail?

   Murray: Yes, I'll try to do that today.

   Norm: We are adjourned.

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to contact the DSDL folks about this use case [recorded
   in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/16-xproc-minutes.html#action01[13]]

   **

   [End of minutes]

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   [1] http://www.w3.org/
   [2] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/03/16-agenda.html
   [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/03/16-xproc-irc
   [4] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/03/16-agenda.html
   [5] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/02/23-minutes.html
   [6] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/02/27-morning-minutes.html
   [7] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/02/27-afternoon-minutes.html
   [8] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/02/28-morning-minutes.html
   [9] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/02/28-afternoon-minutes.html
   [10] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langreq.html
   [11]
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2006Mar/0017.html
   [12] http://www.w3.org/2006/03/16-xproc-minutes.html#action01
   [13] http://www.w3.org/2006/03/16-xproc-minutes.html#action01
   [14] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
   [15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[14] version 1.127 (CVS
    log[15])
    $Date: 2006/03/16 17:08:39 $

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

Received on Thursday, 16 March 2006 17:10:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:47 GMT