|
Title: |
Report on WG1 Meeting in London, May 2003 |
|
Source: |
WG1 Convenor, JTC1/SC34 |
|
Project: |
All SC34 Projects |
|
Project editor: |
Martin Bryan |
|
Status: |
|
|
Action: |
For information only |
|
Date: |
5th May 2003 |
|
Summary: |
|
|
Distribution: |
SC34 and Liaisons |
|
Refer to: |
|
|
Supercedes: |
|
|
Reply to: |
Dr.
James David Mason |
Present:
Martin Bryan
Ann Wrightson *
Eric Van der Vlist
Murata Makoto
Lynne Price *
* Not present for all of meeting
The meeting convened at 10.45am on 3rd May and ended at 4pm on 4th May.
It was felt that it would be confusing to have Part 0 and Part1 as a single part. It would also be confusing to change the number of Part 2 as it may already have been referenced elsewhere using the original part number. Therefore it was agreed to renumber Part 0 as Part 1 and Part 1 as Part 10, changing the name of. Part 10 to Validation Management.
Part 0 comment resolution was agreed:
The committee accepted Joshua Lubell's suggestions that the AFDR functionality be included in Part 8, but noted that the processing rules for DSDL/RELAX NG would need to be re-expressed in XML instance format, though the results of the processes should be the same as if AFDR had been used to validate architectural forms defined as part of element and attribute declarations in a DTD. The name "Flexible Schema Reuse" was not considered to be useful: the committee felt that the part should be renamed as "Declarative Document Architectures".
Japanese comments of CD for Part 4 are more about James Clarke's Modular Namespaces (MNS) proposal than the original CD. Their first comment that MNS be adopted as the basis for the the next CD draft was accepted and the Japanese comments to MNS, including five not included in the CD ballot, were discussed. The editor is to prepare a disposition of comments for the Japanese and UK comments. These are to be discussed further on the DSDL discussion list and a new FCD prepared for balloting within ISO. The new text should be structured according to ISO rules, e.g. starting with a scope statement and a list of referenced standards.
If ISO 9573 entity sets are updated not only the maths sets need to be updated, but all the 9573 entity sets. The versions based on conversion to Unicode character numbers would need to have differentiating public identifiers, but could use the same entity names to reference the sets. The new versions should also be given URI-based system identifiers to ensure compatibility within XML-based systems.
The "outie" proposal for the XML Validation Interoperability Framework was reviewed as a mechanism for DSDL Validation Management (Part 10). The proposal was generally approved, though with some minor suggestions for improvement. Text is to be converted to format suitable for submission as ISO CD. Rick Jelliffe's e-mail relating to namespace processing was considered to be the result of a misunderstanding that has since been corrected.
The comments on the working group's evaluation of the shortcomings of W3C's existing datatype definitions for XML are to be submitted to the W3C datatype group. Those comments not taken note of by W3C then they should be incorporated into Part 5: Datatypes of DSDL. This specification should also:
National bodies should be invited to propose set of primitives and extension methods within next 6 month. Eric van der List is to work on a proposal for minimal set of data lexical spaces with derivation as part of this work. We should also consider the possibility asking national bodies to drop this Part as unnecessary in that Part 2 already contains functionality for allowing any existing datatype definition to be used to control the contents of any existing or future datatype specification.
For Part 3: Rule-based Validations we need to find out why no CD has been prepared by editor.
Nothing has been done on Part 6: Path-based integrity constraints so far. Murata Makoto is to try to draft a first draft that will act as a strawman to stimulate discussion in this area . He will send to editor James Clarke for further discussion.
A new editor will be required for Part 7 if Dederick Gerth cannot be persuaded to submit some text. It must be possible to restrict characters within specific elements and within attribute values.
An editor needs to be identified for Part 9: Namespace and datatype aware DTDs. The proposal on Datatypes for DTDs (DT4DTD) should be considered as the mechanisms for datatype specification.