Re: Minutes from XML Schema Patterns for Databinding call 9 May 2006

Just for the record, I have no objections to your proposals in issues 39 to
48.

Pete.
--
=============================================
Pete Cordell
Tech-Know-Ware Ltd
                         for XML to C++ data binding visit
                         http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx
                         (or http://www.xml2cpp.com)
=============================================

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
To: <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 4:59 PM
Subject: Minutes from XML Schema Patterns for Databinding call 9 May 2006



Minutes from today's call are now available here:

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/6/5/09-databinding-minutes.html

and below for Tracker's searching


- DRAFT -
Databinding WG Teleconference
9 May 2006

Agenda

See also: IRC log
Attendees

Present
    Jon Calladine, (BT)
    George Cowe (Origo Services)
    Paul Downey (Chair, BT)
    Otu Ekanem (BT)
Regrets
    Ajith Ranabahu (WSO2)
Chair
    pauld
Scribe
    pauld

Contents

    * Topics
         1. ISSUE-34: multiple schemas for a single namespace
         2. Administrivia
         3. ISSUE-36: Tool selection for testing of basic pattern assertions
         4. Contribution of Schemas
         5. ISSUE-10: Mapping Element and Type names
         6. ISSUE-39: importing components from another namespace
         7. ISSUE-40: XML Schema document encoding
         8. ISSUE-41: annotation and documentation elements as basic
patterns
         9. ISSUE-42: schema version and ID attributes as a basic patterns
        10. AOB
    * Summary of Action Items

ISSUE-34: multiple schemas for a single namespace

pauld: relates progress in the WS-I WG
... preferred outcome?

george: ideal outcome is to have our practice enshired, but as usual
practicalities with tools and what our customers want may lead to a
different outcome being acceptable.

Administrivia

last weeks minutes approved

canvas of likely f2f participation for the Agenda

expecting WD publication soon

ISSUE-36: Tool selection for testing of basic pattern assertions

discussion of how we work

pauld: "basic" means "Known to work well with current toolkits" and really
aimed at schema authors

pauld: "advanced" means "in widespread use and really no reason to not work
well with toolkits"

jonc: and "Design Considerations"?

pauld: unhappy about "Design Considerations" becoming a bucket for "weasel
words"

pauld: .. e.g. xs:choice doesn't work in Axis ADB and yet is a basic pattern

george: don't forget that Axis is used in many Websphere implementations

pauld: working on the assumption that doesn't work in .NET at least means
*doesn't* fit into basic patterns

pauld: we'll enumerate the tools we're aware of subject to ACTION-19

jonc: happy to use the test report as a means of documenting the toolkits we
actually used, rather than those we plan to use.

pauld: others can supply evidence of running our tests to get on the CR
report
Contribution of Schemas

george: am building an example schema which contains patterns important to
Origo

pauld: contribution of individual patterns most helpful in tracking issues
and updating our document

pauld: been looking at other vertical schemas, hence last week's DOS attack
on the issues list

ISSUE-10: Mapping Element and Type names

pauld:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsd-databinding/2006May/0000
... am fairly unhappy with this proposal, feel we need some testing in this
area may clarify matters for the Basic patterns

jonc: Design Consideration is again a little weak for an obvious problem
with tools

george: we use a simple naming convention
... unaware of mapping mechanism in Axis or .NET

<scribe> ACTION: pdowney build test cases for ISSUE-10 [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2006/05/09-databinding-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-37 - Build test cases for ISSUE-10 [on Paul
Downey - due 2006-05-16].

jonc: test cases are a good way to document "anti-patterns"

ISSUE-39: importing components from another namespace

pauld: these patterns don't prevent other patterns being added if they
interoperate, e.g. multiple schema locations. Our experience is these
patterns work well and are good enough.

RESOLUTION: ISSUE-39 closed with enclosed proposed patterns

ISSUE-40: XML Schema document encoding

pauld: took Basic Profile text on schema document encoding, makes sense if
we're at least as restrictive, if not more so.

george: happy with this, we currently make use of ISO-8859-1, but expect to
move to UTF-8 soon

RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-40 with enclosed proposal

ISSUE-41: annotation and documentation elements as basic patterns

george: unaware of issues with databinding and documentation elements

jonc: seen issues with a large WSDL documents and XMLSpy

pauld: would simple test cases help in this area?

<scribe> ACTION: pdowney to produce a documentation pattern test case
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/09-databinding-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-38 - Produce a documentation pattern test case [on
Paul Downey - due 2006-05-16].

ISSUE-42: schema version and ID attributes as a basic patterns

pauld: version discussed in WSDL WG

jonc: does it change anything on the wire?

RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-42 with enclosed proposal
AOB

o2: been working on the automated test kits, making progress
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: pdowney build test cases for ISSUE-10 [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2006/05/09-databinding-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: pdowney to produce a documentation pattern test case [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/09-databinding-minutes.html#action03]

[End of minutes]

Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2006 09:14:12 UTC