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

XProc Minutes 14 Sep 2006

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:00:58 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <87odti72g5.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/09/14-minutes.html


                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 35, 14 Sep 2006


   See also: IRC log[3]


           Alex, Andrew, Henry, Michael, Mohamed, Norm, Paul, Rui

           Alessandro, Erik, Murray, Richard




     * Topics
         1. Accept this agenda?
         2. Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. Next meeting: telcon 21 Sep 2006
         4. Review of open action items
         5. Technical discussion
         6. Any other business?
     * Summary of Action Items


  Accept this agenda?

   -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/09/14-agenda.html

   <alexmilowski> pre coffee, only partially present...


  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/09/07-minutes.html


  Next meeting: telcon 21 Sep 2006

   Possible regrets: Rui

  Review of open action items

   A-13-01: Continued.

   A-34-01: Completed

  Technical discussion

   Discussion of draft

   <ht> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/ED-xproc-20060912/#steps[6]

   Henry: I'd like to talk about steps and components

   Alex: I'd like to talk about 4.1.3

   Henry: I'd like to see if we can't reach consensus before the end of this

   Alex: I'd like to see about fixing my example too.

   Henry: Everything up to 2.1 is fine except that figure 2 needs a transform
   step at the end, not a validate step

   <MSM> also s/rerpesents/represents/

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to fix figure 2 [recorded in

   <MSM> also s/Definition: A step which contains other steps is called a
   step containers./...container./

   Henry: Steps ought to be bits of markup; but we talk about step containers
   which ought to be about components
   ... All of sections 2 and 3 don't need any notion of representation or
   anything like that
   ... The introduction of the notion of representation and the XML level in
   section 2 is a mistake and you don't stay with it.

   Norm tries to explain his view

   Norm: Steps are syntax and some of them have steps inside them. Components
   get instantiated and some of them contain subpiplines.

   Henry: Maybe we can just try to write the first two sentences of 2.1
   without saying anything about pipeline documents or represents
   ... You've chosen "component" as the over-arching term.
   ... Some components are atomic like xslt and atomic and others are
   "constructs" or "step containers"
   ... Except that we have components now so they ought to be component
   ... Many components are simple and atomic and correspond to a single
   operation. An XSLT component, for example...
   ... However, some components are containers for other components...called
   a container...called contained components

   Alex: Step and step container is still an abstract concept, it's not just
   ... Component is something that has to be bound and has to have all that
   ... I'm not sure that drawing an analogy between the language constructs
   and a component is the right thing.
   ... Components containing components seems awfully technical, do we really
   need to go there?

   Henry: I like the way the first section reads

   <MSM> if a pipeline is a DAG of (atomic) components, then we've got:
   graphs, subgraphs, and nodes

   <Zakim> MSM, you wanted to suggest that the absence of a definition of
   'step' is symptomatic of a problem. I'm not entirely certain which
   problem. But a problem.

   Michael: I have an unease similar to Henry's: as a first time reader, I
   can't tell if step is an abstract unit that may correspond to a subgraph
   or an XML thing (or both). And so I agree with Henry that there's room for
   improvement here.

   <ht> So, Alex, note in section 1 we have "The standard ***choose***
   component evaluates"

   <ht> which reads just fine to me

   Michael: Unfortunately, Henry's proposal has a contradition: either
   components nest and they're similar to blocks in Algol style programming
   languages *OR* pipelines are DAGs of components.

   Henry: I've come to think that that's not the best way to think about
   these things.
   ... At the same time, a component container is a node in one graph and has
   a graph inside it.

   Michael: Then the definition of pipeline as "a graph" is misleading.

   Henry: Look at figure 2. The Choose box contains a subgraph.
   ... There are important constraints that are captured naturally by saying
   that the nodes are either atomic or contain subgraphs.

   Michael: Then we should say that the graphs inside are separate.
   ... Let's talk about it in sort of purely graph terms. I think there are
   two ways to tell the graph story.
   ... One way is to say that the graphs are contained inside and don't
   ... Another way is to say that there is a graph that has all the
   components in it. The way to view choose is a subgraph of that larger
   ... If we think of it in terms of the latter approach, then the drawing
   here is not the flat graph either. You need a splitter node and ajoiner
   node as well.
   ... Steps then always correspond to subgraphs; atomic steps just
   correspond to a single node.

   <Zakim> alexmilowski, you wanted to modify that definition of subgraph

   Norm: I prefer the former definition.

   Alex: I prefer the latter.
   ... My model is that there is a single graph. I think of choose being a
   node in the graph.

   <Zakim> ht, you wanted to point back to the agreement from Ontario

   Henry: I'm happy with the first story. I don't understand the second yet.


   Henry: Having the language constructs like choose and for-each be a locus
   of ports (of nodes in the graph) and a scope all seem to work well
   ... It must be the case in some sense that the stories are isomorphic, but
   I think the story that's in the document is much closer to the first

   Norm proposes to talk about 4.1.3 for a bit as it seems directly relevant
   to which story we're telling.

   Alex: What happens when some contained step points off to something that
   it's allowed to access.
   ... In 4.1.3 we say that we have some fabricated declaration.
   ... It's going to be a mess to report errors.
   ... It's not helpful to make this thing self contained.

   Norm and Alex go back and forth a bit about what the right answer is.

   Alex: I see two ways out of this, allow declare input and actually make
   4.1.3 valid against our current specification and acknowledge that people
   can do this. Or have a different model for how we talk about these things.
   ... There's an inconsisentency here that bothers me.
   ... There's a problem with for-each and view-port where you'd have to be
   able to tell *which* for-each was the important one and which are the
   ... Maybe it would be better to draw a picture.

   Norm: I propose dropping 4.1.3 for FPWD

   Alex: I'd be happy with that, perhaps with the ednote placed somewhere
   else with more explanation

   Resolved, we'll drop 4.1.3 for FPWD

   <MoZ> +1 but letting know that the WG will propose shortcut syntax

   Henry: My feeling is that I don't care if we don't settle this question in
   this WD either.
   ... I'd like to see slightly more consistency in the story we tell in
   parts 2 and 3.
   ... I'll volunteer to work on a new draft over the weekend.

   Proposal: The WG will publish the current draft as the FPWD (with 4.1.3)

   So resolved.

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to request permission to publish [recorded in

   Proposed: If an alternate draft is proposed by close-of-business (Boston
   time) on Monday, the WG will have until close-of-business Wednesday to
   veto. If there are no veto's, the alternate draft will be published
   instead. The only plans for the alternate draft are to improve wording in
   sections 2 and 3.


   Proposed publication date: 28 Sep 2006


  Any other business?


Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to fix figure 2 [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to request permission to publish [recorded in
   [End of minutes]


   [1] http://www.w3.org/
   [2] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/09/14-agenda.html
   [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-xproc-irc
   [6] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/ED-xproc-20060912/#steps
   [7] http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-xproc-minutes.html#action01
   [8] http://www.flickr.com/photos/ndw/211253174/in/set-72157594234207396/
   [9] http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-xproc-minutes.html#action02
   [10] http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-xproc-minutes.html#action01
   [11] http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-xproc-minutes.html#action02
   [12] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
   [13] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[12] version 1.127 (CVS
    $Date: 2006/09/14 15:57:05 $

Received on Thursday, 14 September 2006 18:01:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:40 UTC