XProc Minutes 5 January 2012

See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/05-minutes


                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 205, 05 Jan 2012


   See also: [3]IRC log


           Norm, Jim, Henry, Cornelia, Vojtech, Alex





     * [4]Topics

         1. [5]Accept this agenda?
         2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. [7]Next meeting: telcon, 12 January 2012.
         4. [8]Review of XML processor profiles
         5. [9]XProc V.next discussions
         6. [10]Any other business

     * [11]Summary of Action Items


  Accept this agenda?

   -> [12]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/05-agenda


  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [13]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/12/15-minutes.html


  Next meeting: telcon, 12 January 2012.

   No regrets heard.

  Review of XML processor profiles

   Norm summarizes. Questions about the diagram?

   Jim: Vojtech suggested a small circle to represent XInclude in Full

   Henry: I have reservations, could we see it first?

   Norm: Any other questions or concerns before we publish?

   None heard.

   Norm: Here's what I propose: we agree to publish this as a new LC draft
   with an email decision this week on the diagram.

   <jfuller> +1 to that

   Norm: I propose a publication date of XXX next week, where XXX is whatever
   day of the week the team likes to publish on
   ... Let's see, LC drafts need to have a comment period. How long do we

   Some discussion of the selection of colors for the diagram wrt various
   forms of color restricted vision.

   Norm proposes 17 Febuary for the close of the LC comment period.

   Norm: Any objections to publishing a new LC with a last call period ending
   on 17 February.
   ... Modulo details about the diagram.

   No objections heard.

   RESOLUTION: Publish new LC next week with LC period ending 17 Feburary.

   -> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/proc-profiles-test.svg

   Discussion of the diagram

   <jfuller> sending u a new diagram

   Norm: Ok, I propose we use the new diagram, with a small editorial edition
   to the spec that describes what the inner purple circle means.

   No objections heard.


  XProc V.next discussions

   Norm summarizes.

   Norm: I tried to start a resource mgr discussion, but I like Vojtech's

   Henry: I don't
   ... What about the race condition?

   Norm: We add a depends-on attribute to resolve that

   Henry: Boy, I don't want to go there.
   ... I want the resource manager to handle something like the XQuery
   consistency constraint.
   ... Storing into the resource manager should be a distinct operation.

   Norm: I think we've gone all the way around the house and got back to
   where we started.

   Henry: Yeah.
   ... Is it obvious in the case that we're looking at [Vojtech's
   mail]...when I turn on that extension. Does it also do a PUT or not?

   Vojtech: My idea in this case is that it wouldn't really store it, it just
   updates the resource manager cache.

   Henry: Then the synchronization becomes a little easier. One way to do
   this is to use our own URI scheme.

   Norm: I don't think that works, we want to tinker with URIs in existing

   Henry: Then you want an XML Catalog

   Norm: No, because I don't necessarily know statically, in advance, what
   the URIs are.

   Henry: We ought to be able to have a compound step which is "with

   Vojtech: It could also be an attribute on steps that indicates if the
   output should be cached.

   Henry: The idea is that there should be a general step that allows you to
   intercept GETs...

   Alex: In 1.0 we have a statement about the (lack of) doc function
   ... I want to able to say "in this part of my pipeline, I want
   ... There are other issues about catalogs, side effect control, etc.
   ... They probably all interplay in some way.

   Henry: I think we should adopt the XQuery rule.

   Alex: It's not that quite that cut and dry. You need to be able to specify
   different consistency constraints in different parts of the pipeline.

   Norm: Those two rules are directly contradictory.

   Henry: Here's a back of an envelope design:
   ... We start with the story that the XQuery story holds. The first
   retrieval establishes a binding between a URI and a document and that
   binding is consistent/stable for the duration of the pipeline.
   ... We also have a lexically scoped URI binding mechanism.
   ... We want to avoid race conditions, so whatever we do we need to make
   statically scoped. It seems like it would be possible to use the notion of
   a "with-uri-bindings" compound step to not only allow you to map from one
   URI to another but also to require a refetch.
   ... To say that the story about consistency is reset and everyone within
   this scope has to do it all again.

   Norm: I'm intrigued by the idea of having a catalog that applies for the
   duration of a compound step.

   Henry: I want to keep caching and writing separate.

   Alex: If you're binding in your catalog, then we have the feature of the
   ability to have URI named results, that are accessible by URI then your
   catalog does what you want.

   Norm: If we said that cache:uri retrieved "uri" from the cache, then we
   could do it.
   ... It's not clear to me that it's practical to construct such a catalog
   dynamically in all cases.

   Alex; I think there are two issues.

   scribe: Catalogs map things to URIs.
   ... Then external to that, then you have the ability to say that these
   results have this name.
   ... Then you can have a catalog somewhere that points to an intermediary

   Vojtech: We already say something about changing documents.
   ... In the valdation steps, for example, we say that documents passed to
   the step are used in favor of external documents with the same URIs.
   ... We need to make sure that these features interact well under these
   cases too.

   Norm: I feel good about the progress we made. Exploring an explicit cache
   step and explicit catalog scoping seems like a good combination.
   ... Any closing thoughts before we run out of time.

  Any other business

   Norm: I would really appreciate any suggestions for how to structure the
   agendas to make progress on V.next

   Jim: I think we need some principles to guide us on V.next.
   ... With an eye towards adoption and prioritizing in favor of outstanding
   user requests.
   ... And we should ask ourselves what type of V.next we're talking about.
   ... I would naturally think of it from a time point of view.
   ... If we say that V.next is 50% fixing what is broken and 50% usability,
   then that would be a useful thing to guide our discussions.
   ... And what about backwards-compatibility?


Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [15]scribe.perl version 1.136 ([16]CVS
    $Date: 2012/01/05 16:50:54 $


   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/05-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2012/01/05-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/05-minutes#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/05-minutes#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/05-minutes#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/05-minutes#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/05-minutes#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/05-minutes#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/05-minutes#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/05-minutes#ActionSummary
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2012/01/05-agenda
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/12/15-minutes.html
  14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/proc-profiles-test.svg
  15. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  16. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 16:52:33 UTC