W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xsd-databinding@w3.org > March 2008

Minutes: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Telcon 11 March 2008

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:45:25 -0000
Message-ID: <EFFE16B1340E654082DCD17D16429533ABA8BC@E03MVA3-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>

minutes from today's telcon now available:


and copied below:

                                        - DRAFT -

             XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Working Group Teleconference

11 Mar 2008


   See also: IRC log


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




     * Topics
         1. Publication of Basic Patterns
         2. Collection and Schema Annotation
         3. lc-xsd-1
         4. lc-xsd-2
         5. lc-xsd-3
         6. lc-xsd-4
     * Summary of Action Items

Publication of Basic Patterns

   pauld: we need to renew the charter, runs out end of this month

   yves: we need to have a document published, that'll help

   gcowe: "elementfinal" isn't valid, and is "Basic", should be removed


   pauld: testing worked?

   gcowe: example was missing

   pauld: doubly sure we should remove it
   ... OK so "ElementFinal" is removed as a pattern


   <gcowe> elementfixed was a new advanced pattern added

   pauld: elementfixed accepted as an advaced
   ... I'll produce a list of differences

   XML Schema WG send comments:

   pauld: most look reasonable
   ... most look like they apply to spec as it stands
   ... suggest I raise these as LC issues, publish this week on the list and we OK
   at a meeting next tuesday

   pauld: we need to list the changes from the previous Last Call publication in the
   status section:

   $ cvs co -r1.67 patterns.xml

   last call patterns:


   need to record list of patterns added and removed since our last, last call

   gcowe: will look at the differences

Collection and Schema Annotation

   <Yves> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xmlschema-patterns-20061122/

   pauld: have a technique for annotation schema, should have it tonight


   * References to concepts and terminology from XSD need to be made more

   precise. For example, section 1.3 says "A document claiming conformance

   to this specification ... MUST conform to the [XML Schema 1.0

   Recommendation]", but XSD provides no conformance requirements for

   "documents" in general. It would be more appropriate to say that "A

   document claiming conformance to this specification ... MUST be a 'schema

   document' [2], as defined in [XML Schema 1.0 Recommendation], and MUST

   therefore meet the "Constraints on the representation of schema components

   in XML" [3] provided therein." Actually, there's a further mismatch on

   infosets vs. serialization; see next point.


   RESOLUTION: Accepted suggested text for lc-xsd-1


   * 1.3 also says that a document conforming to the databinding

   specification must be a well formed XML 1.0 document; XSD defines a

   schema document as an Infoset with <xs:schema> as the root element. You

   should make clear whether the mismatch is intentional, and if so rewrite

   the text suggested above accordingly. Otherwise, you should change to

   indicate that a conforming document is infact an Infoset, consistent with

   XSD. That will mean changing the many references to XML 1.0 documents

   that appear throughout your draft.

   pauld: we discussed this early on, I should find evidence of our discussion, but
   we agreed to work at the XML level, and this is an addition constraint over the
   XML Schema spec, and this is a part of our relationship to the WS-I BP

   RESOLUTION: Rejected lc-xsd-2


   * Section 1.4 suggests that a conforming application "SHOULD be able to

   process any valid [XML Schema 1.0] document.". First of all, there's some

   question as to whether a SHOULD is appropriate in a conformance section.

   Notwithstanding that, the reference to [XML Schema 1.0] documents is

   again not strictly clear, since XSD talks about instances to be validated

   as well as schema documents. We suggest a formal reference to 'schema

   documents' [2] as in the first point above.

   pauld: whole point of our spec is that not all implementations can swallow any


   pauld: what would be the advantage of removing this?

   yves: wouldn't impact people's reading of the document

   pauld: anyone want to argue against removing:

   RESOLUTION: Accepted lc-xsd-3 and remove assert-AnySchema


   * Section 1.4 says that conformance requires that an implementation: "

   MUST produce a data model exposing all of the [XML 1.0] element node and

   attribute node content described by the originating [XML Schema 1.0]

   document.", but "described by" is not a formal relation or operation

   provided for in XSD. Especially in a conformance requirement, this seems

   too informal.

   pauld: no alternative terminology suggested. "described by" is pretty OK by me,
   but then I'm no spec lawyer
   ... any suggestions for better suggestion?

   yves: "per"

   pauld: or we could define "described by"

   gcowe: "constrained by"

   pauld: "constrained" is used throughout the XML Schema spec

   RESOLUTION: Accepted lc-xsd-4 replacing "described" with "constrained"

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 17:45:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:13 UTC