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

Minutes: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding telcon 7 November 2006

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 18:22:11 -0000
Message-ID: <2A7793353757DB4392DF4DFBBC95225504BFF017@I2KM11-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>

minutes from today's call are available:

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/6/11/07-databinding-minutes.html

and below for tracker's benefit:



                                   - DRAFT -

                         Databinding WG Teleconference
                                  7 Nov 2006

   Agenda

   See also: IRC log

Attendees

   Present
          Jon Calladine (BT)
          George Cowe (Origo Services Limited)
          Paul Downey (BT)
          Otu Ekanem (BT)
          Yves Lafon (W3C)

   Regrets
          Vladislav Bezrukov (SAP AG)
          Priscilla Walmsley (W3C Invited Expert)

   Chair
          pauld

   Scribe
          pauld

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Administrivia
         2. ISSUE-12 Detection of Patterns
         3. ISSUE-2 Test Suite
         4. ISSUE-88 id attribute
         5. Abstract Types
         6. ISSUE-92 default values for schema attributes may be
            explicitly provided
         7. final and block issues
         8. ISSUE-84 Local Element ComplexType
         9. ISSUE-57 xs:include pattern
        10. ISSUE-73 Do we allow DTDs, external entities, etc?
        11. ISSUE-74 Relative URIs in targetNamespace schemaLocation
        12. ISSUE-10 Mapping Element and Type names
        13. Last Call
     * Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________________

  Administrivia

   minutes from the 24th approved

  ISSUE-12 Detection of Patterns

   pauld: status of patterns and detector
   ... can people run the detector on their own schemas

   george: does the detector follow included schemas
   ... it would be useful if it did
   ... i'll investigate

   <scribe> ACTION: gcowe to investigate the patterns detector following
   import and include [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2006/11/07-databinding-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-89 - Investigate the patterns detector
   following import and include [on George Cowe - due 2006-11-14].

   pauld: following import/includes should be optional

   jonc: we had interop issues so don't do a lot of import/including

   pauld: be aware of loops
   ... building a collection of patterns detected in public schemas to go
   alongside our examples

  ISSUE-2 Test Suite

   yves: been looking at XMLUnit

   pauld: will be at WSDL 2.0 event, would like to think about using it
   there

   yves: can send work in progress

  ISSUE-88 id attribute

   pauld: unlikely to effect code gen

   RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-88 as a Basic Pattern

  Abstract Types

   ISSUE-80, ISSUE-81, ISSUE-82, ISSUE-90

   jonc: abstract='true' likely to be advanced
   ... we've rejected switching xsi:type as being Basic

   we have:
   http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/examples/6/09/ComplexTypeSequenc
   eExtension/

   can't the base class be "abstract"?

   jonc: most tools will ignore this, and probably allow an instance
   document to be created

   gcowe: our experience wasn't great with abstract

   jonc: can't see benefit in making it basic when it's really for
   advanced patterns
   ... want to treat element and complexType separately

   pauld: recalls seeing code-first tools present interfaces as
   abstract='true'
   ... abstract='false' seems safe,
   ... i can see abstract elements being advanced, but complexType being
   basic
   ... it'll be at risk subject to test

   RESOLUTON: accept abstract=false as a Basic Pattern, complexType
   abstract=true as a Basic Pattern and abstract element as Advanced

   gcowe: are we going to take the same approach for all default
   attribute values?

  ISSUE-92 default values for schema attributes may be explicitly provided

   http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/databinding/issues/92

   created during the call

   RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-92 as accepting default schema attributes
   explicitly set as Basic

  final and block issues

   jonc: introduces ISSUE-83, ISSUE-88, ISSUE-89

   feels they should be Basic as they limit the use of xsi:type, even if
   they're ignored, they're unlikely to break anything

   pauld: if we accept the attributes as Basic, do we have enough
   granularity to remove ones which don't work with tools?

   jonc: these are mostly harmless

   gcowe: if tools ignore them, is it a problem?

   RESOLUTION: block, final and blockDefault, finalDefault are Basic
   Patterns, may be finer grained patterns in the document

  ISSUE-84 Local Element ComplexType

   pauld: in essence this is Russian Doll, used very widely, but we have
   encountered bad experiences with tools

   jonc: we had problems with some in-support tools from big name vendors

   pauld: do we put it in to rip out under testing? leaving it out will
   be questioned
   ... prefer to make it Basic and test it

   jonc: we need to make sure to add BEA 8.x and other mainstream tools
   to our testing

   RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-84 as a Basic Pattern

  ISSUE-57 xs:include pattern

   pauld: this is really an issue with our test suite

   RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-57 as Basic, examples needed

  ISSUE-73 Do we allow DTDs, external entities, etc?

   pauld: is widespreadly used, notably in the schema for schemas, no
   reason to say anything.

   RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-73 with no action, examples would be useful

  ISSUE-74 Relative URIs in targetNamespace schemaLocation

   george: won't the test suite find this

   pauld: if we add patterns and examples for relative URIs and xml:base
   ... propose targetNamespace must be an absolute URI

   RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-74 with pauld's proposal

  ISSUE-10 Mapping Element and Type names

   this is a long standing issue

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsd-databinding/2006Nov/002
   2

   george: is one pattern is Basic and the others Advanced?

   pauld: initially they're all proposed as being Basic, but under
   testing may be moved to advanced

   yves: i'm ok so long as we call out we're not profiling, but trying to
   document interoperability

   pauld: will write an editorial note raising the awareness of this
   issue being at risk

   RESOLUTION: ISSUE-10 closed with paul's proposal

  Last Call

   pauld: are we ready for Last Call?

   jonc: ISSUE-70?

   pauld: oops!

   RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-70 as a Basic Pattern

   yves: we don't need to close all issues to go to Last Call
   ... we can remove features marked as "at risk" all our patterns

   pauld: our assertions aren't at risk
   ... my feeling is we need more text (editorial) and patterns and
   examples for all our closed issues (editorial)
   ... biggest danger is we have patterns missing for any very basic
   features

   yves: we can make editorial changes after last call, non-normative
   changes can go onto CR/PR

   pauld: how long do we need to give?

   yves: 6 weeks is usual

   pauld: that sits right during the holiday season :-(
   ... ok lets do some editorial work and vote on it next week since
   we're heading for start of January anyway

   yves: you can have a F2F during LC to answer issues

   pauld: we may do that depending upon public reaction

   pauld: in the meantime, please try the patterns detector on your
   schemas and report back on any missing patterns, especially ones which
   should be Basic

   ADJOURNED

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: gcowe to investigate the patterns detector following
   import and include [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2006/11/07-databinding-minutes.html#action01]

   [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 7 November 2006 18:22:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:20:37 GMT