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

Minutes: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding telcon 28 November 2006

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:51:00 -0000
Message-ID: <2A7793353757DB4392DF4DFBBC9522550A20126D@I2KM11-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>


minutes from today's telcon are now available:

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/6/11/28-databinding-minutes.html

and below for Tracker's benefit:

   W3C 

                                   - DRAFT -

                         Databinding WG Teleconference

28 Nov 2006

   Agenda

   See also: IRC log

Attendees

   Present
          Vladislav Bezrukov (SAP AG)
          Jon Calladine (BT)
          George Cowe (Origo Services Limited)
          Paul Downey (BT)
          Yves Lafon (W3C)

   Regrets
   Chair
          pauld

   Scribe
          pauld

Contents

     * Topics
         1. ISSUE-12: Detection of Patterns
         2. ISSUE-2: Test Suite
         3. ISSUE-62: Why would a pattern NOT be included in our Advanced
            document?
         4. ISSUE-97: proposed set of new patterns 
         5.
     * Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________________

   minutes from the 21st approved

   pauld: so we're in last call

   <scribe> ACTION: yves to add LC-Basic as a product on tracker
   [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-databinding-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-91 - Add LC-Basic as a product on tracker
   [on Yves Lafon - due 2006-12-05].

   pauld: ACTION ITEMS are getting out of control. Please mop up.

ISSUE-12: Detection of Patterns

   george: been working on a validation service, have a JSP, it's Java 5
   based

   yves: send me the source, will look into hosting it when the team
   return from Japan

ISSUE-2: Test Suite

   pauld: OK i'm the block here, will get a page put up

   yves: still working on XMLUnit, plan to have something by end of the
   week

   vlad: been trying the testsuite in our framework, need some general
   directions

   pauld: you are not alone, I will work on the Test Suite page

   pauld: include examples are broken
   ... we need small schemas to include in some of our examples

   <scribe> ACTION: gcowe to look at fixing our include examples,
   ISSUE-98 [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-databinding-minutes.html#action02]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-92 - Look at fixing our include examples,
   ISSUE-98 [on George Cowe - due 2006-12-05].

   pauld: we seem to have a number of patterns for Advanced which we
   closed the issue, but aren't in the patterns and examples

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

   jonc: how do we get vendors' input on what isn't implementable?
   ... can we get a commnity input, or on an individual basis
   ... is there a vendor concensus?

   pauld: we have a working group, they can join
   ... business as usual, we may get some interest as a result of LC
   ... publishing our testsuite will help
   ... more interested in if we end up with the whole of schema covered,
   or only patterns we see in use?
   ... maybe we should just examine some Advanced issues and find our way

   jonc: is the concern this could be a job for life?:
   ... some of us are only interested in the Basic, vendors may be more
   interested in the Advanced?

   pauld: think schema publishers may also be interested in Advanced
   ... risk is that anyone could come with any pattern and we would then
   publish it as Advanced

   jonc: if *any* recognised toolkit can process a pattern, then it could
   be "Advanced"

   pauld: so what about "open enumeration type" no toolkit may support
   it, but i want it in Advanced
   ... would it be acceptable for us to assign a URI for a pattern, but
   not put it in either document?

   jonc: would any schema author want to use a pattern not implementable
   in a databinding toolkit?

   pauld: would like to have coverage for any valid schema
   ... thinking we can stop when we run out of time
   ... am I overthinking this issue?

   george: we haven't had many people contributing patterns

   pauld: that's important point. Lack of participation remains a worry.

   <pauld> looks for a carrot shaped stick ;-)

   yves: we should contact people now we have LC documents

   vlad: submitted some patterns, and publically available schemas, may
   not be representative in terms of coverage

   pauld: ok so we need outreach. I'll work on that.

   george: we need to make sure we have coverage of patterns from our
   issues list

   pauld: OK george, submit your patterns ;-)

ISSUE-97: proposed set of new patterns

   pauld: so we seem to have some base types (xs:token) missing for
   enumerations

   pauld: and we need better coverage of base types for patterns

   http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/patterns/6/09/LongSimpleTypePatt
   ern/

   george: may not be firing in our schemas

   pauld: puzzled because it works OK for our examples, eg:

   http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/examples/6/09/StringSimpleTypePa
   ttern/

   pauld: appInfo is very open ended. "Annotations" are called out in our
   Charter.

   pauld: will raise appInfo as a separate issue

   RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-97 on basis of exploding into other issues

   <scribe> ACTION: pdowney to explode ISSUE-97 [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-databinding-minutes.html#action03]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-93 - Explode ISSUE-97 [on Paul Downey - due
   2006-12-05].

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: gcowe to look at fixing our include examples, ISSUE-98
   [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-databinding-minutes.html#action02]
   [NEW] ACTION: pdowney to explode ISSUE-97 [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-databinding-minutes.html#action03]
   [NEW] ACTION: yves to add LC-Basic as a product on tracker [recorded
   in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-databinding-minutes.html#action01]

   [End of minutes]
    
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2006 20:52:24 GMT

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