- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 21:54:21 -0500
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <87bniyqaea.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/04/08-minutes
[1]W3C
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
Meeting 269, 08 Apr 2015
[2]Agenda
See also: [3]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Norm, Alex, Jim, Henry, Murray
Regrets
Chair
Norm
Scribe
Norm
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Accept this agenda?
2. [6]Next meeting
3. [7]Review of open action items
4. [8]"Merge" concepts of ports and options, issue 109
5. [9]Proposal for p:validate step
6. [10]Any other business?
* [11]Summary of Action Items
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda?
-> [12]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/04/08-agenda
Accepted.
Next meeting
Proposed: 15 April 2015 does anyone have to give regrets?
<ht> Regrets for 15/4
Review of open action items
<scribe> No progress reported.
"Merge" concepts of ports and options, issue 109
-> [13]https://github.com/xproc/specification/issues/109
Jim: Things have moved on a bit; so this may not be relevant anymore.
<jfuller>
[14]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2014Feb/0001.html
<ht> I thought we had actually already discussed this???
Jim summarizes Romain's message.
Jim: I think in the end, the idea of addressing ports with XPath
expressions is off the table.
... The other half of the issue is addressed by the @bind shortcut.
... I think we can close this without action.
Norm: Ok. I think Romain will raise another issue (or reopen this one) if
there are particular details that we haven't addressed.
Henry: I would be very sorry to lose the basic architectural nature of
ports and steps. As essentially a data flow language.
Norm: I propose that we close this and see what happens?
No objections heard.
Proposal for p:validate step
-> [15]https://github.com/xproc/extensions/blob/master/steps/validate.md
Norm attempts to summarize
<jfuller> comment for the scribe - on issue #109, I think the work we did
with opening up options, providing @pipe and allowing non xml docs flow
all strengthen the current architecture with demarcation between options
and ports
Alex: Can we generalize beyond the model PI.
Can we have definitions of group and phase that are generalized, or should
they simply be parameters.
Norm: That didn't occur to me at the time, but making them parameters
might be a good idea.
<alexmilowski> [16]http://www.w3.org/2013/ShEx/Primer
Alex: There's a validation language for RDF stuff
Norm: That's the RDF Shapes work, I think.
Alex: I think we should make sure that we are aligned with these
technologies.
Norm: I'll move group and phase to the parameters.
<scribe> ACTION: A-269-01 Alex to review the RDF Shapes work and see if
this validation step will cover that use case. [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: A-269-02 Norm to review the current state of play wrt to
JSON schema and see if we can cover that use case too. [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
Jim: Is there any context where there's some symmetry with assertions
here.
... If not, is there any work of a p:assert mechanism.
Norm: I think you can do assertions with XPath expressions and the p:error
step.
Jim: It seems like we're putting a facade over existing steps to provide a
single entry point. When I was thinking about this, I was thinking about
what's the same about assertions.
... I'm wondering if we need some symmetry at that level. A single entry
point for assertions.
<scribe> ACTION: A-269-03: Jim to raise an issue with some specific
examples of the kinds of assertions he has in mind [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action03]
Alex: I wonder if we need a kind of scale of validity.
Norm: I think that's what the report port is for, if you don't specify
assert-valid then you can expect a report of what the result of attempted
validation was.
Alex: Is there work on this?
Henry: Yes. If you demand a single answer, you often get "no" but if you
want more detail, XML Schema validation does generate multiple values.
Alex: You can consider structural validity vs datatype validity etc.
Henry: That's not a million miles away from what's done, but it's done in
a different direction. The use cases we had in mind were things like a
bank transfer where the validity of some fields wasn't considered
important.
... The two three-valued features are roughly speaking, "I had enough
information to attempt validation on none/some/all of this document and I
found that of the parts I was able to validate none/some/all of it was
valid."
... Then you get individual remarks about individual bits of invalidity.
Alex: I wonder if it makes sense to make recommendations for common
parameters.
... You could have a parameter called outcome and it has one of those
values.
Norm: I think that's what you get from the report port.
Alex: How do we choose to validate?
Norm: I added parameters for the validation technologies we know about!
Alex: I could imagine a situation where you send the validation spec two
schemas (XML Schema and RELAX NG) and my processor has some way to do
validation twice.
... Does it make sense to have names you can define.
Norm: What's a name?
Alex: The name is the type of validation you want to attempt.
Norm: But one point of this step is that it doesn't know what kind of
validation it's going to do until it looks at the input document and (in
the case of XML) finds the xml-model PI.
... I left open the possibility of passing in a model.
Murray: The report port, is that like sending something to a log file.
Norm: Yes, except that it's intended for downstream steps to interpret.
Henry: In fact my now out of date validator produced a document and had a
stylesheet.
Murray: Surely there's a name that's more general for a port like this?
Henry: I don't know one. Most compilers just spit stuff out on stderr.
Norm: The term "report" is what Schematron uses.
Alex: Could we make this simpler by having a single port for 'report' and
'validation attempted'?
Norm: Yes, probably. I was trying to make it possible to know what was
done without necessarily knowing the format of the report.
Murray: So the implementation is going to do its thing with with some
technology that we don't know.
... The implementor knows what all the messages are.
... The step should not only provide the services it should also have a
known report format.
Alex: It would be nice to have a vocabulary for the report, even if its
non-normative.
... I think that should be in the spec. It's implementation defined but
you can use this.
... For report. For validation-attempted, that should be something that's
defined.
<scribe> ACTION: A-269-04 Norm to define the validation-attempted output
format and propose a non-normative report structure [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action04]
Alex: The other suggestion I want to make is that we add a section on
validation with Schematron.
<scribe> ACTION: A-269-05: Norm to make sure there's a "Validation with
Schematron" section. [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action05]
Alex: I also think that we should have examples that show how to do the
same thing with p:validate that we used to do with specific validation
steps.
... I think people will gravitate towards the p:validate step
Henry: I strongly disagree that there should be any attempt to produce a
report format, even for validate-attempted. There's such tremendous
variety in what's debated and produced, that it's an 18 month research
project.
Alex: I hear you, but in that case we have to put a big warning in the
spec.
<jfuller> at the edge, looking into an abyss ....
Henry: Even assert-valid requires someone to map the outcomes from schema
validation to that bit. The schema spec itself does not provide you with
that bit.
... The XML Schema spec only tells you two three valued numbers.
... I think this step should explicitly say that the outputs are
implementation defined; so the implementor has to document them so you'll
know what they are.
Murray: But not interoperably?
Henry: No.
Some research into what the current p:validate-with-xml-schema step says
about assert-valid; it appears to say very little.
<alexmilowski> [22]http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc/#c.validate-with-xml-schema
<scribe> ACTION: A-269-06: Henry to review the current
p:validate-with-xml-schema step and see what we should possibly say
differently [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action06]
Alex: For each of the languages we're going to enumerate, if we're going
to, we need to define what assert-valid means.
... Users aren't going to be satisfied if we say the whole thing is
completely implementation defined.
Any other business?
Jim: One point of p:validate is to enable new validation technologies,
right?
Norm: Sortof.
Henry: Yes, but it does mean we have to tell implementors that they have
to define how assert-valid is defined.
Alex: Let's push this off for two weeks until Henry returns.
<jfuller> have a great break Henry !
Adjourned.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: A-269-01 Alex to review the RDF Shapes work and see if this
validation step will cover that use case. [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: A-269-02 Norm to review the current state of play wrt to
JSON schema and see if we can cover that use case too. [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: A-269-03: Jim to raise an issue with some specific examples
of the kinds of assertions he has in mind [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: A-269-04 Norm to define the validation-attempted output
format and propose a non-normative report structure [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: A-269-05: Norm to make sure there's a "Validation with
Schematron" section. [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: A-269-06: Henry to review the current
p:validate-with-xml-schema step and see what we should possibly say
differently [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action06]
[End of minutes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [30]scribe.perl version 1.140 ([31]CVS
log)
$Date: 2015/04/08 15:15:38 $
References
1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/04/08-agenda
3. http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-irc
4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/04/08-minutes.html#agenda
5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/04/08-minutes.html#item01
6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/04/08-minutes.html#item02
7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/04/08-minutes.html#item03
8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/04/08-minutes.html#item04
9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/04/08-minutes.html#item05
10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/04/08-minutes.html#item06
11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/04/08-minutes.html#ActionSummary
12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2015/04/08-agenda
13. https://github.com/xproc/specification/issues/109
14. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2014Feb/0001.html
15. https://github.com/xproc/extensions/blob/master/steps/validate.md
16. http://www.w3.org/2013/ShEx/Primer
17. http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action01]
18. http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action02]
19. http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action03]
20. http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action04]
21. http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action05]
22. http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc/#c.validate-with-xml-schema
23. http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action06]
24. http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action01
25. http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action02
26. http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action03
27. http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action04
28. http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action05
29. http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-xproc-minutes.html#action06
30. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
31. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 9 April 2015 02:54:53 UTC