[DFDL-WG] Minutes from 2007-08-08 Call

Mike Beckerle beckerle at us.ibm.com
Tue Aug 14 08:23:57 CDT 2007


I forgot to clarify Simon's question on sp165.

This was the 'finalTerminatorCanBeMissing" property. 

We considered the comment that this might be unnecessary. 

Use case: file of text format. Each "record" in the file is terminated by 
a CRLF so sez the user. At the top level this file contains an array of 
these records. 

The file might or might not have a CRLF at the end of the file because 
human beings might have edited the file with a text editor, and either 
inserted or neglected to insert this final CRLF.

We want the file format to be legal with or without the final CRLF; 
however, all prior CRLFs in the file must be present.

So how to express this:
1) CRLF is a terminator of the record
2) CRLF is an occursSeparator of the enclosing array, records have no 
terminator. We enclose the array in a sequence group where the array is 
followed by a hidden "optional" (minOccurs=0 max=1) element of 
fixed="CRLF" string value.

Choice (1) requires that we have finalTerminatorCanBeMissing

Choice (2) is just modeling the behavior that is required directly via 
hidden elements. This is tantamount to saying that this keyword is not 
worth having because there is a way to model it already. This is true of 
many keywords. If we deem this one too obscure, then we need to revisit 
many others. (Leading/Trailing Skip Bytes is a good example. Trivially 
represented by a hidden element).  What are our criteria for inclusion? Up 
until now our criteria have been to include things that existing systems 
already have found a need for. However, existing systems don't have hidden 
field capability.

Note that this same missing final terminator issue can come up not only 
with End-of-data, but with any bounded size structure.

E.g., suppose we say that an array has occursUnits="bytes" and 
occursPath="874". Then it is 874 bytes long. The array elements can be 
terminated by a particular data. E.g., semicolon. For the same reasons as 
the CRLF example above, we want to be able to tolerate a missing final 
semicolon before the end of the 874 bytes.  In effect the 
byte-length-limit creates an implicit "end-of-data" for a sub-stream 
consisting of just those bytes. 

Conclusion: finalTerminatorCanBeMissing seems to be useful enough and 
comes up often enough that I think the keyword is worthwhile.

Implication: we should create a list of keywords or enumerated values for 
properties  that we think are in the grey area where perhaps we want to 
drop them. Here's some candidates: byteOrderMarkPolicy, 
leading/trailingSkipBytes. Both these can be modeled readily as hidden 
elements. There are probably others.

Mike Beckerle
STSM, Architect, Scalable Computing
IBM Software Group
Information Platform and Solutions
Westborough, MA 01581
direct: voice and FAX 508-599-7148
assistant: Pam Riordan 
                  priordan at us.ibm.com 
                  508-599-7046





Mike Beckerle/Worcester/IBM
08/14/2007 08:40 AM

To
"Simon Parker" <simon.parker at polarlake.com>
cc
dfdl-wg at ogf.org
Subject
Re: [DFDL-WG] Minutes from 2007-08-08 Call





In conjunction with the annotated document these notes are clear, except 
for 'sp165'. Perhaps someone will recapitulate the discussion briefly at 
Wednesday's conference. I think only three annotations remain:

    sp167 Absent and missing (expanded discussion on the wiki already)

This will be a major topic on a call.

    sp172 separatorType="infix"

I'm happy to drop this strange stuff about separatorType=prefix or postfix 
and just say separator means infix. However, I would note that at least 
two major integration products (IBM WebSphere Transformation Extender - 
formerly Mercator, and Microsoft Biztalk, have this concept, so we may end 
up putting it back in. Presumably MS copied the earlier Mercator style, or 
both got it from common requirements in some EDI standard.

    sp173 defaultWhenMissing (expanded discussion on the wiki already)

Same topic as sp167 above. Will have a call topic to discuss. 
 
I've added another contribution to the wiki discussion on 'require'.

This seems to be at resolution I think, which is that we can express this 
using assertions. The general style of using DFDL to describe what 
fixed-data syntactic constructs look like is a good one.

However, I've amended the Wiki thread on this with a further issue for 
group consideration. See bottom of page: 
https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.dfdl-wg/wiki/Require?_message=1187096164776
 
The 'length and occurs' proposal is an improvement, though I still have 
reservations to discuss; likewise the 'opaque data' proposal.

For a call, this week or soon. I will send out an agenda.

Mike Beckerle
STSM, Architect, Scalable Computing
IBM Software Group
Information Platform and Solutions
Westborough, MA 01581
direct: voice and FAX 508-599-7148
assistant: Pam Riordan 
                  priordan at us.ibm.com 
                  508-599-7046





"Simon Parker" <simon.parker at polarlake.com> 
Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org
08/13/2007 10:56 AM

To
<dfdl-wg at ogf.org>
cc

Subject
Re: [DFDL-WG] Minutes from 2007-08-08 Call







 
In conjunction with the annotated document these notes are clear, except 
for 'sp165'. Perhaps someone will recapitulate the discussion briefly at 
Wednesday's conference. I think only three annotations remain:

    sp167 Absent and missing (expanded discussion on the wiki already)
    sp172 separatorType="infix"
    sp173 defaultWhenMissing (expanded discussion on the wiki already)
 
I've added another contribution to the wiki discussion on 'require'.
 
The 'length and occurs' proposal is an improvement, though I still have 
reservations to discuss; likewise the 'opaque data' proposal.
 
Regards,
 Simon
 

From: dfdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:dfdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf 
Of Mike Beckerle
Sent: 08 August 2007 18:00
To: dfdl-wg at ogf.org
Subject: [DFDL-WG] Minutes from 2007-08-08 Call


MikeB, Geoff Judd, Alan Powell attended. 

Continued through SP's comments. 

sp37 - got it. 

sp45 - agree. This whole part to be rewritten. 

sp115 - ok. strict and "lax" as enums. No built-in default - we never use 
defaults in the processor itself. Only in the predefined formats. 

sp118 - ok 

sp123 - Proposal to simplify length, lengthKind, lengthUnits, and also 
occursKind, occursPath, occursPathUnits needed. (along the lines of 
byteCount, itemCount, length='delimited' enum, etc.) 

sp154 - Need specific proposal to eliminate hexBinary and use what for 
opaque (consider also string with encoding='bytes'. )  Or introduce a 
dfdl:byteString type or dfdl:opaque type. (derived type - just a standard 
name). 


sp158 - see sp123 

sp165 - needed to have composition property for enclosing groups and or 
end-of-data. Regexp doesn't fix this. 


Mike Beckerle
STSM, Architect, Scalable Computing
IBM Software Group
Information Platform and Solutions
Westborough, MA 01581
direct: voice and FAX 508-599-7148
assistant: Pam Riordan 
                 priordan at us.ibm.com 
                 508-599-7046
--
  dfdl-wg mailing list
  dfdl-wg at ogf.org
  http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/dfdl-wg/attachments/20070814/fe02824d/attachment.html 


More information about the dfdl-wg mailing list