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, 14 Nov 2006 17:32:04 -0000
Message-ID: <2A7793353757DB4392DF4DFBBC95225504BFF043@I2KM11-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>

minutes from today's call are now available:

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/6/11/14-databinding-minutes.html

and below for tracker's searching:



   W3C 

                                   - DRAFT -

                         Databinding WG Teleconference

14 Nov 2006

   Agenda

   See also: IRC log

Attendees

   Present
          Vladislav Bezrukov (SAP AG) 
          Jon Calladine (BT)
          George Cowe (Origo Services Limited)
          Paul Downey (BT)

   Regrets
          Yves Lafon (W3C)
          Otu Ekanem (BT)

   Chair
          pauld

   Scribe
          pauld

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Administrivia
         2. ISSUE-93: xs:gMonth and xs:gDay are advanced
         3. Moving to Last Call
         4. ISSUE-62: Why would a pattern NOT be included in our Advanced
            document?
         5. ISSUE-95: totalDigits for xs:decimal
         6. NEW-ISSUE: sequence/@maxOccurs
     * Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________________

Administivia

   jonc: has to drop off early, sorry!

   pauld: plan to make this a short call

   minutes from the 7th November approved

ISSUE-93: xs:gMonth and xs:gDay are advanced

   pauld: mono and others barf

   any objections to moving gDay and gMonth to advanced?

   RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-93 as being advanced

Moving to Last Call

   pauld: did a bunch of editing, including an attempt to define the term
   "state of art"

   pauld: our biggest risk is we've missed somthing obviously "Basic"

   pauld: had mail from Yves, W3C would like to move to LC

   jonc: BT happy to move forward

   gcowe: Origo is OK to move forward

   gcowe: we're more interested in patterns detection

   vladislav: would ideally like more time to review, OK to move
   forward, but may contribute Basic patterns during Last Call

   pauld: discussion of what Last Call means.

   pauld: be aware that if the WG adds a pattern to Basic Last Call, that
   could be seen as a "substantive change" and may take us back to a
   Working Draft.

   pauld: it's no disgrace for us to have two Last Calls given our level
   of participation

   pauld: OK, so we're agreed. Let's go to Last Call!

   pauld: will complete editorial AIs today and notify the WG on the
   member list

ISSUE-62: Why would a pattern NOT be included in our Advanced document?

   http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/databinding/issues/62

   pauld: plan to start lining up our davanced issues, and am collectiong
   patterns as being "pending", expect more issues soon.

   pauld: what wouldn't we include? redefine seeems to be an obvious
   no-no for databinding, but why? We need to know when to stop.

   vladislav: would argue against redefine!
   ... probably not mentioning redefine is best

   pauld: we only have positive patterns, so that's how we're thinking

   gcowe: we're happy with the Basic and our patterns in Adavnced, not
   looking for much more

   pauld: that's the risk, we're a small WG and we only look at schemas
   of interest to us

   gcowe: will submit some missing patterns

   pauld: been collecting public schemas from the wild and have 40
   something to cvs commit along with a cool ant taks to fetch, cache and
   detect patterns

   gcowe: how many patterns remain to be documented?

   pauld: hard to say, depends on the granularity of the tool

   discussion of possbile inferance tool - intersect patterns in a schema
   with patterns known to work with a given tool

   vladislav: submitted several issues, including versioning ?

   pauld: BT is very interested in versioning. We'll get to this soon,
   but I'm worried about open ended discussion, making concrete proposals
   for patterns is going to be our best way forward.

ISSUE-95: totalDigits for xs:decimal

   vladislav: came from precisionDecimal pattern, possibly a simpler
   approach to constrain the size of decimal
   ... not sure it's Basic, and we may have an alternative approach

   gcowe: lets see how the testsuite handles it

   RESOLUTION: accept ISSUE-05 as a Basic pattern

ISSUE-96: SequenceMaxOccurs

   gcowe: thinks sequence/@maxOccurs is a Basic pattern

   pauld: OK, so we're almost in Last Call. Let's raise it as an issue,
   accept it in advance as being Basic?

   no objections

   ADJOURNED

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 14 November 2006 17:32:31 GMT

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