Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Minutes for 6 March 2002 UBL NDR meeting

["Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@sun.com>]

Matt and all who attended,

Thanks for soldiering on.  I don't know what happened here, but I'm 
glad you had some productive discussion anyway.  We absolutely have to 
have the tag structure paper revised before Barcelona, and perhaps it 
will be possible for Gunther to revise the elem vs. att paper to 
reflect the discussions of this topic too.

Let's plan to meet on WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13 to try to wrap things up 
before the F2F.  As I noted in the agenda I sent out for today's 
meeting, if we simply show up with our position papers in hand, we 
should be okay, but we REALLY REALLY need to get some of these papers 
in better shape.  I don't know how else to get this done, so I'm 
simply in the position of begging...

	Eve

Matthew Gertner wrote:

> The meeting was unchaired but we went forward anyway.
> 
> 1. Roll call                            
>     Bill Burcham		YES
>     Mavis Cournane	YES
>     Mark Crawford
>     Fabrice Desré
>     John Dumay
>     Matt Gertner		YES
>     Arofan Gregory	YES
>     Phil Griffin  	
>     Eduardo Gutentag 	YES
>     Eve Maler        
>     Dale McKay       
>     Joe Moeller      
>     Sue Probert      
>     Ron Schuldt       
>     Lisa Seaburg      
>     Gunther Stuhec    	YES
>     Paul Thorpe       
> 
>     Quorum not reached as of x:15.  We proceeded informally.
> 
> 1'. Next week's call
>      No real chair. Needs to be discussed on the list.
> 
> 2. Acceptance of minutes of previous meetings
> 
>     Deferred.
> 
> 3. Adoption of agenda
> 
>     Short discussion of Bill's paper
>     Elements vs. attributes
> 
>     Adopted informally. Other items deferred.
> 
> 4. Action item review
> 
>     Deferred.
> 
> 5. Tag names
> 
> Short discussion of Bill's paper. Arguments made both for and against
> binding tag names in various ways to type names. Action to everyone to read
> latest version of Bill's paper (will be posted to list) as input for final
> decision.
> 
> 6. Elements vs. attributes
> 
> Gunther has a new position paper. He argues that attributes could be used
> more than previously discussed. An example in currency code: making it an
> attribute eliminates the need for additional child elements, is more
> readable and is more efficient. Also proposed for:
> 
> * ID/IDREF
> * xml:lang (Arofan points out that there are difficulties enumerating this
> in practical cases, Gunther says that another attribute could be used for
> this purpose)
> 
> Gunther says he still has to outline treatment of empty elements. Arofan
> says that a lot of elements will be empty in this case, since all data will
> be in attributes (which Eduardo doesn't like), but Gunther says this is not
> so: the value itself will be in the element content.
> 
> Arofan points out one possible problem, which is when there is structure in
> the value (e.g. exchange rate info). This might be solved by using mixed
> content, which no one likes. Eduardo says that this can be solved using new
> attributes or sibling elements. 
> 
> In general, consensus that elements be used for data and attributes for
> metadata, as per Gunther's paper. One caveat from Arofan (no example given)
> is if metadata needs to have structure, in which case it has to use
> elements.
> 
> 7. Adjourn
>     Adjourned y:00.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> 


-- 
Eve Maler                                    +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center   eve.maler @ sun.com