W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xsd-databinding@w3.org > June 2006

Minutes from XML Schema Patterns for Databinding call 6 June 2006

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 20:46:53 +0100
Message-ID: <2A7793353757DB4392DF4DFBBC95225504BFEA46@I2KM11-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>

Minutes from today's telcon are now here:


and below for Tracker's searching:

                               - DRAFT -

                     Databinding WG Teleconference
                              6 Jun 2006


   See also: [3]IRC log


          Jon Calladine, (BT)
          George Cowe (Origo Services)
          Paul Downey (Chair, BT)
          Otu Ekanem (BT)
          Ajith Ranabahu (WSO2)

          Yves Lafon (W3C)




     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]F2F planning
         2. [6]ISSUE-12: identifying a conformant schema
         3. [7]ISSUE-35: Design Considerations as Warnings
         4. [8]ISSUE-2: WSDL and the Test Suite (Auto-generation
            of )
         5. [9]ISSUE-9: Support for xs:union
         6. [10]ISSUE-34: multiple schemas for a single namespace
         7. [11]ISSUE-33 is xs:Choice a Basic Pattern?
     * [12]Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 06 June 2006

   <scribe> Scribe: pauld

F2F planning

   pauld: trying to line up a F2F last week in July/First week in
   August depending upon a room

ISSUE-12: identifying a conformant schema

   george: spoke to Mark, both came to the conclusion that
   looking for what isn't allowed is far easier than recognising
   allowed patterns
   ... the catch-all doesn't seem to work for us

   jonc: highlighting what NOT to use isn't politically correct

   george: yes, I realise

   pauld: worried how this impacts how we work

   george: is it sufficient to only report patterns in use, and
   leave as an exercise for the reader to work out what else is
   in there? (doesn't seem likely, though easy to implement)

   pauld: wondering if it's a problem of how we're working or our
   proposed use of schematron that's the issue here?

   <Ajith> bit noisy !

   <pauld> BT are on a polycon in The City with roadworks going
   on outside.

   pauld: seems like we need to consider finer grained patterns
   and/or another XPath based tool to make progress

   pauld: I'm unhappy at this point to change the way we work
   given it looks promising from a spec-layering POV.

   pauld: George sent me some schematron this morning which
   looked very promising.

   <scribe> ACTION: pdowney to solicit help based upon George's
   work on Schematron [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-44 - Solicit help based upon
   George\'s work on Schematron [on Paul Downey - due

   - seems to me that finer grained patterns will help us here -
   patterns such as 'Collection' are too big at the moment, and I
   suspect this is likely to be at the root of our difficulties.

   pauld: thanks George for his work on this!

ISSUE-35: Design Considerations as Warnings

   pauld: if Yves was here I'd ask about adding XPath rules for
   our design considerations in our xmlspec

ISSUE-2: WSDL and the Test Suite (Auto-generation of )

   pauld: I worked with Otu and generated WSDL and example SOAP
   1.1/1.2 documents

   pauld: each WSDL contains an echoX operation to echo an
   element of type X, and in most Java toolkits the generated
   server function is:
        X echoX(X p) {
            return p;

   and .NET C# is just:
        void echoX(ref X p) {

   jonc: been using Axis2 thanks to the databinding framework to
   generate Java code, but had a few niggles deploying our
   services using Tungston, would appreciate some WSO2 assistance

   ajith: Jon sent me some WSDL, I'll take a look

   pauld: looks promising, I'll keep ISSUE-2 open as a
   placeholder for now

ISSUE-9: Support for xs:union

   jonc: we generated some WSDL using Yves script hacked by Pauld
   using a union pattern

   jonc: several tools bailed, notably Axis2 when we used the ADB
   binding framework


   pauld: certainly doesn't look like a basic pattern to me, but
   is it an advanced pattern?
   ... saw two different patterns for union from jon

   <scribe> ACTION: jcalladi to submit pattern for ISSUE-9
   [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-45 - Submit pattern for ISSUE-9 [on
   Jonathan Calladine - due 2006-06-13].

   <scribe> ACTION: jcalladi to create issue for alternative
   pattern for union [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-46 - Create issue for alternative
   pattern for union [on Jonathan Calladine - due 2006-06-13].

ISSUE-34: multiple schemas for a single namespace

   pauld: went to the basic profile WG with George's issue
   ... feel bad at the result, but my clarification does at least
   document the status quo which has to be better than being
   ambiguous, no?

   george: does lead us to feel that databinding tools aren't
   ideal for our customers

   pauld: all databinding tools suck!

   george: I guess the reality is that we going to have to
   revisit our namespace policy

   pauld: to be fair it's really less of a databinding issue and
   more of a WSDL types section issue, which is the thrust of my

   pauld: So what should I do with this issue now?

   george: we can progress it in the WS-I ourselves

   RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-34 with no action

   pauld: fwiw I'm at the next WS-I Plenary and intend to present
   on behalf of the WG at the opening session

ISSUE-33 is xs:Choice a Basic Pattern?

   pauld: I'm considering reopening this issue in the light of
   how we are now working

   pauld: George, it was your issue, how do you feel about going
   back and reopening it?

   george: happy to reopen it

   pauld: will reopen ISSUE-33 and put it on the Agenda for the
   next WG meeting
   ... practical experience means it doesn't belong in basic
   patterns, so should it be moved to advanced?

   george: ditching Choice from Basic patterns isn't going to
   look good!

   pauld: isn't going to look good for whom? :-)

   pauld: OK, time's up - thanks for your work this week, I think
   we've made some progress

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: jcalladi to create issue for alternative pattern
   for union [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: jcalladi to submit pattern for ISSUE-9 [recorded
   [NEW] ACTION: pdowney to solicit help based upon George's
   worth [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [20]scribe.perl version
    1.127 ([21]CVS log)
    $Date: 2006/06/06 19:20:00 $


   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsd-databinding/2006Jun/0006.html
   3. http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-databinding-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/6/6/06-databinding-minutes.html#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/6/6/06-databinding-minutes.html#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/6/6/06-databinding-minutes.html#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/6/6/06-databinding-minutes.html#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/6/6/06-databinding-minutes.html#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/6/6/06-databinding-minutes.html#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/6/6/06-databinding-minutes.html#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/6/6/06-databinding-minutes.html#item07
  12. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/6/6/06-databinding-minutes.html#ActionSummary
  13. http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-databinding-minutes.html#action01
  14. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsd-databinding/2006Jun/0005.html
  15. http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-databinding-minutes.html#action02
  16. http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-databinding-minutes.html#action03
  17. http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-databinding-minutes.html#action03
  18. http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-databinding-minutes.html#action02
  19. http://www.w3.org/2006/06/06-databinding-minutes.html#action01
  20. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  21. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2006 19:47:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:12 UTC