W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xsd-databinding@w3.org > November 2006

Minutes: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding telcon 7 November 2006

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:32:04 -0000
Message-ID: <2A7793353757DB4392DF4DFBBC95225504BFF043@I2KM11-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>

minutes from today's call are now available:


and below for tracker's searching:


                                   - DRAFT -

                         Databinding WG Teleconference

14 Nov 2006


   See also: IRC log


          Vladislav Bezrukov (SAP AG) 
          Jon Calladine (BT)
          George Cowe (Origo Services Limited)
          Paul Downey (BT)

          Yves Lafon (W3C)
          Otu Ekanem (BT)




     * Topics
         1. Administrivia
         2. ISSUE-93: xs:gMonth and xs:gDay are advanced
         3. Moving to Last Call
         4. ISSUE-62: Why would a pattern NOT be included in our Advanced
         5. ISSUE-95: totalDigits for xs:decimal
         6. NEW-ISSUE: sequence/@maxOccurs
     * Summary of Action Items


   jonc: has to drop off early, sorry!

   pauld: plan to make this a short call

   minutes from the 7th November approved

ISSUE-93: xs:gMonth and xs:gDay are advanced

   pauld: mono and others barf

   any objections to moving gDay and gMonth to advanced?

   RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-93 as being advanced

Moving to Last Call

   pauld: did a bunch of editing, including an attempt to define the term
   "state of art"

   pauld: our biggest risk is we've missed somthing obviously "Basic"

   pauld: had mail from Yves, W3C would like to move to LC

   jonc: BT happy to move forward

   gcowe: Origo is OK to move forward

   gcowe: we're more interested in patterns detection

   vladislav: would ideally like more time to review, OK to move
   forward, but may contribute Basic patterns during Last Call

   pauld: discussion of what Last Call means.

   pauld: be aware that if the WG adds a pattern to Basic Last Call, that
   could be seen as a "substantive change" and may take us back to a
   Working Draft.

   pauld: it's no disgrace for us to have two Last Calls given our level
   of participation

   pauld: OK, so we're agreed. Let's go to Last Call!

   pauld: will complete editorial AIs today and notify the WG on the
   member list

ISSUE-62: Why would a pattern NOT be included in our Advanced document?


   pauld: plan to start lining up our davanced issues, and am collectiong
   patterns as being "pending", expect more issues soon.

   pauld: what wouldn't we include? redefine seeems to be an obvious
   no-no for databinding, but why? We need to know when to stop.

   vladislav: would argue against redefine!
   ... probably not mentioning redefine is best

   pauld: we only have positive patterns, so that's how we're thinking

   gcowe: we're happy with the Basic and our patterns in Adavnced, not
   looking for much more

   pauld: that's the risk, we're a small WG and we only look at schemas
   of interest to us

   gcowe: will submit some missing patterns

   pauld: been collecting public schemas from the wild and have 40
   something to cvs commit along with a cool ant taks to fetch, cache and
   detect patterns

   gcowe: how many patterns remain to be documented?

   pauld: hard to say, depends on the granularity of the tool

   discussion of possbile inferance tool - intersect patterns in a schema
   with patterns known to work with a given tool

   vladislav: submitted several issues, including versioning ?

   pauld: BT is very interested in versioning. We'll get to this soon,
   but I'm worried about open ended discussion, making concrete proposals
   for patterns is going to be our best way forward.

ISSUE-95: totalDigits for xs:decimal

   vladislav: came from precisionDecimal pattern, possibly a simpler
   approach to constrain the size of decimal
   ... not sure it's Basic, and we may have an alternative approach

   gcowe: lets see how the testsuite handles it

   RESOLUTION: accept ISSUE-05 as a Basic pattern

ISSUE-96: SequenceMaxOccurs

   gcowe: thinks sequence/@maxOccurs is a Basic pattern

   pauld: OK, so we're almost in Last Call. Let's raise it as an issue,
   accept it in advance as being Basic?

   no objections


Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 14 November 2006 17:32:31 UTC

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