Re: [I18N-WSTF] Teleconference Notes...

>Basically, the discussion revolved around the problem of passing locales
...
>What we're talking about here aren't locales, though, but locale tags or

By the bare word "locale", people can mean *many* different things, as you
did so in your two recent messages. I think part of the problem is that we
have to be a bit more precise in our language (myself included).

Someone could mean by "locale" any of the following:

1. "locale conventions" - a set of conventions for doing something (scope*
unclear, but usually includes sorting order; breaks ("character", word,
line, sentence); formatting dates, times, numbers, currency; etc.)
*open issue: how far does this go? religious preference, aisle vs window,
kosher vs vegetarian??
http://oss.software.ibm.com/cvs/icu/~checkout~/locale/locale_data_markup.htm
l

2. "locale domain" - set of people that commonly (though not always*) use
the same locale conventions
*example: I use mostly US conventions, but use 2003-02-21 date format on my
computer

3. "locale data" - a set of data supporting operations in #2
(e.g. "January")

4. "application locale data" - a set of data used to support localized
versions of a program.
(e.g. "Put the candle back")

5. "locale ID" - a short tag used for identifying a locale (one or more of
the above)
...
and perhaps more.

The names above are just off the top of my head. But spending a little time
to come up with good, unambiguous terms for what we are discussing would be
time well spent!

Back to the other topic:

> If you are making a WS out of an existing method or function call, it
> shouldn't be necessary to pass said method a locale unless the design of
> the method (e.g. the parameter list) really calls for it.

This I agree with; an example would make it clear. That is, a WS that
computed standard deviations would not expect to be passed a locale. A WS
that spell-checked or sorted, would.

Mark
________
mark.davis@jtcsv.com
IBM, MS 50-2/B11, 5600 Cottle Rd, SJ CA 95193
(408) 256-3148
fax: (408) 256-0799

----- Original Message -----
From: "Addison Phillips [wM]" <aphillips@webmethods.com>
To: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis@jtcsv.com>
Cc: <public-i18n-ws@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 20:53
Subject: Re: [I18N-WSTF] Teleconference Notes...


>
> Hi Mark,
>
> There is a certain amount of elision in the notes, I'm afraid.
>
> Basically, the discussion revolved around the problem of passing locales
> to a WS: when should the WS designer need to deal with it (by specifying
> the locale in the parameter list of the actual service or in the Message
> definition in the WSDL) and when not.
>
> Passing a locale explicitly is, as you note, a good idea when the locale
> has a natural or reasonable place in the "service contract". But it is a
> poor choice when the service isn't necessarily locale affected ("add two
> integer values"). Many if not most services fall into this latter
> category, IMO.
>
> That isn't to say that there are no cases for passing a locale.
>
> If one does a careful job of designing the data structures and service
> contract, generally one does not want a locale. You may need explicit
> facets of a locale (a language for natural language processing, a
> currency, a country code, etc. etc.), but not that many data structures
>   need an explicit locale, even as an override value.
>
> There are lots of counter examples.
>
> So that note should say something more like:
>
> If you are making a WS out of an existing method or function call, it
> shouldn't be necessary to pass said method a locale unless the design of
> the method (e.g. the parameter list) really calls for it.
>
> A lot more discussion (much of it off list, alas) goes with that, all of
> which fell under the rubric of "agreed about the nature of passing etc..."
>
> Sorry the notes make this difficult to follow.
>
> Addison
>
> Mark Davis wrote:
> >>o General agreement: passing locale explicitly is a poor choice for
> >
> > designing a WS. We agreed about the nature of passing locale and
programming
> > model.
> >
> > I am a bit uneasy about this. There are times when it is ok to depend on
a
> > 'global' locale. But it is subject to many of the general problems of
global
> > variables. What we chose to do in Java was to have both a 'global'
setting,
> > and to be able to explicitly pass in locales wherever necessary. (The
> > architecture predated thread-locale storage in Java, otherwise storing
on a
> > thread basis would have been better that global to the entire address
space.
> > But notice that having explicit locales available makes it possible for
> > people to write cover methods that do use thread-locale storage.)
> >
> > Mark
> > ________
> > mark.davis@jtcsv.com
> > IBM, MS 50-2/B11, 5600 Cottle Rd, SJ CA 95193
> > (408) 256-3148
> > fax: (408) 256-0799
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Addison Phillips [wM]" <aphillips@webmethods.com>
> > To: "Addison Phillips [wM]" <aphillips@webmethods.com>;
> > <public-i18n-ws@w3.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 18:05
> > Subject: RE: [I18N-WSTF] Teleconference Notes...
> >
> >
> >
> >>Attending: Kentaroh, Deb, Martin, Tex, Addison [chair, scribe]
> >>Regrets: Mike, Takao
> >>
> >>Actions:
> >>
> >> o Deb: to follow up with Noji following this call
> >> o Martin, Addison: Find out who WS-Transactionality is. Possibly
consider
> >
> > liasion.
> >
> >> o Addison: Explore charter modification with Richard
> >> o Tex: create use case(s) for "must match requested locale"
> >> o Addison: create requirements document skeleton from ULocale document.
> >> o Deb/Addison: looking at new WS docs from other W3C WGs to ensure
we're
> >
> > not missing anything
> >
> >>General discussion:
> >>
> >>Martin at WS meeting in Arizona. Any specific input would be helpful.
> >
> > Martin has 30 minutes tomorrow in joint session.
> >
> >>Martin: Appreciated Deb's note on "context" keyword. Discussion of
context
> >
> > mechanism for WSDL. Deb thinks this will be defined (competing
proposals
> > exist). Exchange of contexts will be defined in WSDL and elsewhere. Need
to
> > fit our proposals into this mechanism as it matures.
> >
> >>Note: WS-Choreography WG was started.
> >>
> >>--- no additional actions --- so we proceeded to discussion of
> >
> > locale/language negotiation:
> >
> >>o "context" definition across WS, not just for i18n.
> >>o "what" instead of "how" should be the starting part. IOW> we should
work
> >
> > on "tags", not the exchange mechanism because we think that the
"context"
> > idea will be standardized elsewhere.
> >
> >>o General agreement that locale should not be explicit most of the time.
> >>o General agreement: passing locale explicitly is a poor choice for
> >
> > designing a WS. We agreed about the nature of passing locale and
programming
> > model.
> >
> >>o General agreement: locale interpretation is a problem due to disparate
> >
> > implementations (see Kentaroh's list)
> >
> >>    --how much alignment/precision is desirable?
> >>    --"tags" might take several forms:
> >>          i) tag
> >>         ii) structure/data
> >>        iii) urn (as a pointer to a) datafile
> >>
> >>
> >>Discussed what forms a good usage scenario: collation is a good
example..
> >
> > business rules a good example.. SQL statements with implicit ordering
also
> > important. Example: "select all foo < ñ" (that's U+00F1, n-tilde)
> >
> >>Discussed reasons why "charset" might be useful or not. General
agreement
> >
> > that we want to use Unicode everywhere and that charset is an XPG4
legacy
> > value that might not have a place in WS locale negotiation.
> >
> >>   counter examples: WS container invokes XPG4 program in new
> >
> > thread-of-execution; JCA connection to XPG4 resource
> >
> >>Tex: wants to eliminate ambiguity of existing locale system. Specifying
a
> >
> > locale and using fallbacks may be problematic in some circumstances.
Need
> > something like a "must match" with default of false. Tex to create use
case
> > for this.
> >
> >>Discussed why fallbacks are prone to failure, some are "sometimes
wrong",
> >
> > and sometimes best practices can work.
> >
> >>Deb: suppose that no one does anything. We should compare scenarios in
> >
> > this area. Also: consider J2EE example of server-enforced locale.
> >
> >>Ultimately, we agreed on a "Goldilock's approach":
> >>   "As closely defined as we can make the locale tags, but as open as
> >
> > possible."
> >
> >>Agreed that our next steps are to find agreement on the requirements so
> >
> > that we can pursue standardization of a tagging scheme.
> >
> >>In particular we need to write requirements and *also* usage scenarios.
> >
> > What is the general case? What is the usage case?
> >
> >>Group: Considered if we should modify our charter now to allow us to
> >
> > create this as a W3C Recommendation. Discussion ensued. Planned to
create
> > requirements in the next two weeks. We think that this document will
give us
> > enough guidance to decide whether to pursue a specific charter mod or
> > whether to put this item to I18N-WG-Core or to WS-Arch.
> >
> >>Discussed idea of having FTF in Feb/Mar timeframe separate from IUC and
in
> >
> > Boston area.
> >
> >>thanks,
> >>
> >>Addison
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: public-i18n-ws-request@w3.org
> >>>[mailto:public-i18n-ws-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Addison Phillips
[wM]
> >>>Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 3:04 PM
> >>>To: public-i18n-ws@w3.org
> >>>Subject: [I18N-WSTF] [REMINDER] Teleconference Tomorrow
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>W3C-I18N-WG Web Services TF teleconference [WSTF]
> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>-----------
> >>>Bridge   : +1-617-761-6200 (Zakim) with conference code 4186
> >>>(spells "I18N")
> >>>Duration : 60 minutes
> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>-----------
> >>>Day      : Tuesday
> >>>Dates    : 14, 28 January
> >>>Start    : 23:00 GMT, 18:00 Eastern, 15:00 Pacific, 08:00 Tokyo
> >>>(next day!)
> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>-----------
> >>>Zakim information    : http://www.w3.org/2002/01/UsingZakim
> >>>Zakim bridge monitor : http://www.w3.org/1998/12/bridge/Zakim.html
> >>>Zakim IRC bot        : http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html
> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>-----------
> >>>
> >>>REMINDER: the next scheduled teleconference for the WSTF is
> >>>tomorrow. If you have not used the W3C teleconference bridge
> >>>previously, please review the links above for instructions (it's
> >>>very easy).
> >>>
> >>>SUMMARY: This is an important meeting. We'll be reviewing
> >>>activities related to people's positions regarding locales and
> >>>language negotiation. Deb and I have both sent positions to the
> >>>list. Please review these, as they'll be the main topic. If you
> >>>intend to send something for consideration, you should do it quickly.
> >>>
> >>>I have reserved 9 total slots on the bridge. Since we've picked
> >>>up in attendence, I'm keeping the number steady for now.
> >>>
> >>>Agenda
> >>>=============================
> >>>           o Discuss Agenda.
> >>>           o Discuss Action Items.
> >>>           o Discuss next FTF meeting. Tentatively at IUC23 in Prague.
> >>>           o Activity to take on locales and languages.
> >>>
> >>>Pending Action Items
> >>>====================
> >>>1. Martin: will follow up with Russ Rolfe in case MS has any
> >>>space in Prague for an FTF. This is a low priority item.
> >>>2. Team: write up and send to list a "position" on the locale
> >>>problem (See notes below for what that means). Due prior to next
> >>
> > meeting.
> >
> >>>3. Deb: send specific comments on WSUS to list.
> >>>4. Addison: post tentative calendar of activities for year.
> >>>
> >>>Usage Scenarios Working Draft
> >>>=============================
> >>>Can be reviewed here:
> >>>http://www.w3.org/International/ws/ws-i18n-scenarios-edit
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Talk to you then!
> >>>
> >>>Best Regards,
> >>>
> >>>Addison
> >>>
> >>>Addison P. Phillips
> >>>Director, Globalization Architecture
> >>>webMethods, Inc.
> >>>
> >>>+1 408.962.5487  mailto:aphillips@webmethods.com
> >>>-------------------------------------------
> >>>Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature.
> >>>
> >>>Chair, W3C I18N WG Web Services Task Force
> >>>http://www.w3.org/International/ws
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Addison P. Phillips
> Director, Globalization Architecture
> webMethods, Inc.
>
> +1 408.962.5487  mailto:aphillips@webmethods.com
> -------------------------------------------
> Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature.
>
> Chair, W3C I18N WG Web Services Task Force
> http://www.w3.org/International/ws
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 13:47:17 UTC