[DFDL-WG] details vs. the big picture

[Sampo Syreeni]

Hi. I've been following this list for a while now, because as a data 
modelling kinda person I'm interested in formats, conversions, 
metamodels, their mappings, and the like. I'm afraid to say the slow 
development of DFDL has disappointed me. To me it seems quite a number 
of implementations of DFDL should have been out there already, yet they 
aren't.

I think the main reasons are that people in this working group are:

  a) concentrating too much on the details of specific binary formats to
     be parsed/use cases instead of a generic parsing framework for
     common binary data as a whole,
  b) paying too much attention to the XML encoding of the language,
     instead of its semantics, or its possible alternative encodings,
  c) spending far too much time meeting, specifying, theoretizing, and
     downright bickering-in-committee, instead of piece-meal implementing
     the most useful parts of the standard,
  d) contrariwise, optimizing the specification prematurely, e.g. with
     the hesitancy to declare multidimensional arrays as a first class
     citizen even if there are unresolved issues,
  e) doing all of the real work over the telephone or in person, so that
     low budget, practical minded people cannot contribute meaningfully,
  f) failing to show other people what the worth of this whole effort
     is, and thus failing to liaise efficiently even with the Grid
     Forum, and thereby, finally,
  g) failing to engage the broader circle of developers, managers,
     curators, nerds, and whathaveyou, who might be interested in this
     sort of thing.

Is it at all possible that this effort could somehow move into the 
mainstream in the near future? That outside forces, like the FOSS 
community, could speed up the transition? In all, that some of the above 
peeves of mine could be rectified?
-- 
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - decoy at iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2