[DFDL-WG] Agenda for OGF WG call 6 May 2009

Wed May 6 07:55:02 CDT 2009

All,

My apologies, but I will be unable to make the call again this week. I was hoping to have some suggestions regarding the infoset/data model for discussion today, but it's not quite ready (I still have a little more digging to do through the rest of the spec to make sure what I'm suggesting can adequately capture all the representation cases in DFDL). I'll try to get something out by the end of the day for review and discussion on next week's call.

In general, it appears to me (and I'm admittedly not as versed in the various XML standards as the other members of the group) that we can bring the DFDL Infoset very closely in line with the XDM. Specifically, I've been looking at the way XSLT 2.0 treats XDM as it's data model. It states clearly that XDM is the model for XSLT with certain explicit caveats and additions. This follows the XDM guidance of how it should be used by other standards (specifically in XDM Section 7 and Appendix A). The task for DFDL therefore consists of two parts: what parts of the XDM are in conflict with DFDL and should be explicitly excluded, and what parts of DFDL have no corresponding support in XDM and should be appended. Parts of XDM that have no relevance to DFDL but are also not conflicting should probably be left in for conciseness and compatibility.

My biggest concern is over the use of two different types of Element Information Items in the DFDL specification as this seems so contrary to convention in XDM. My recommendations include treating all element nodes similarly to XDM as complex and those element nodes that actually only contain simple content should have a single child of the XDM text node type or a new DFDL value node type (not sure the best way to go here).

In any case, I'll pass along a full recommendation soon.

Dave

________________________________
From: dfdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org [dfdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of Alan Powell [alan_powell at uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 6:01 AM
To: dfdl-wg at ogf.org
Subject: [DFDL-WG] Agenda for OGF WG call 6 May 2009

Agenda:

1. Go through actions.

2. LengthKind on Sequences and choices.

LengthKind on sequences and choices and their parent element has proved confusing to new users of DFDL. It is proposed that lengthKind is removed from groups and only allow it to be set on parent element. See email from SH

3. Discuss UnorderedInitated email from SH

4. Infoset codepage and encoding

The spec does not say what codepage and encoding is used for string fields.

5. AOB
Next version (034)

Current Actions:
No
        Action
012
        AP/SH: Update decimalCalendarScheme
10/9: Not allocated yet
17/9: No update
24/9: Add calendar binary formats to actions
22/10: No progress
16/1: proposal distributed and discussed. Will be redistributed
21/1: add locale,
04/02: changed from locale to specific properties
18/2: Need more investigation of ICU strict/lax behaviour.
08/04: Not discussed
22/04: AP to complete asap once the ICU strict/lax behaviour is understood.
29/04: No progress
020
        SH: Resolve packedDecimalSignCodes behaviour depends on NumberCheckPolicy
22/10: No progress
10/12: added how to decide to overpunch and sign position
11/02: proposal largely agreed. SH to make minor changes
18/02: AP to document unsigned type behaviour
25/02: no progress
08/04: Not discussed
22/04: SH to complete last remaining issue, which is the behaviour when logical type is signed/unsigned and the physical type is unsigned/signed.
29/04: SH had identified a problem with definition values and types in the infoset and will email proposal.  DG to be asked to accelerate action 032 to see if helps
024
        <No owner> String XML type
08/04: Not discussed
22/04: Need to allocate owner. Work is to describe the semantics of using dfdl:representation="xml" to model a well-formed XML fragment in an overall non-XML document described by a DFDL schema.
29/04: As no resource availbel to progress this action agreed to defer from V1. Will close next week if no objections

026
        SH: Envelopes and Payloads
08/04: Not discussed explicity, but recursive use of DFDL is tied up with this
22/04: Two aspects. Firstly compositional - do sufficient mechanisms exist to model an envelope with a payload that varies. Secondly markup syntax - this might be defined in the envelope.
The second of these is very much tied up with the variable markup action 028, so will be considered there. SH to verify the composition aspect.
29/04: SH and AP working on proposal. related to Action 028
027
        SH: Property precedence tables
08/04: Not discussed
22/04: Two things missing from the existing precedence trees. Firstly, does not show alternates (eg, initiator v initiatorkind). Secondly, need a tree per concrete DFDL object (eg, element). SH to update.
29/04: No progress
028
        SH: Variable markup
08/04: Discussed briefly at end of call, IBM to see whether there any use cases that require recursive use of DFDL.
15/04: Use case was distributed and will be discussed on next call.
22/04: The use case in question is EDI where the terminating markup for the payload segments is defined in the ISA envelope segment. The markup is modelled as an element of simple type where the allowable markup values are defined as enums on the type. But we need to handle two cases - firstly where the envelope is present, so the value used by the payload is taken from the envelope. Secondly where only the payload is present. Here we need a way of scanning for all the enum values, and adopting the one we actually find, when parsing. And using a default when unparsing. SH to explore use of a DFDL variable, where the variable has a default, but also has a type that is the same as the markup element - that way we get to use the enums without defining everything twice.
29/04: SH and AP working on proposal.
029
        MB: valueCalc (output length calculation)
08/04: Not discussed
22/04: Action allocated to MB, this is to complete the work started at the Hursley WG F2F meeting.
29/04: No progress
032
        DG: Investigate compatibility between DFDL infoset and XDM
08/04: No update
22/04: No update
29/04: No update
033
        AP/TK: Assert/Discriminator semantics. AP to document. TK to check uses of discriminator besides choice.
08/04: In progress within IBM
22/04: Waiting for TK to return from leave to complete.
29/04: TK has sent examples shown need for discriminators beyond choice. Agreed. MB to respond to TK
036
        SH: Provide use case for floating component in a sequence
08/04: Raised
15/04: Use case sent and discussed. SH to do further investigation
22/04: IBM feedback from WTX team is that alternate suggested ways of modelling the EDI floating NTE segment have significant usability issues. The DFDL principle is that for a problem that can be expressed as two-layered, then two DFDL models are needed.  The EDI NTE segment does not fall into this though, as its use is on a per sequence basis.  Ongoing.
29/04: Agreed that need to be in V1. SH to make a proposal
037
        All: Approach for XML Schema 1.0 UPA checks.
22/04: Several non-XML models, when expressed in their most obvious DFDL Schema form, would fail XML Schema 1.0 Unique Particle Attribution checks that police model ambiguity.  And even re-jigging the model sometimes fails to fix this. Note this is equally applicable to XMl Schema 1.1 and 1.0. While the DFDL parser/unparser can happily resolve the ambiguities, the issue is one of definition. If an XSD editor that implements UPA checks is used to create DFDL Schema, then errors will be flagged. DFDL may have to adopt the position that:
a)DFDL parser/unparser will not implement some/all UPA checks (exact checks tbd)
b) XML Schema editors that implement UPA checks will not be suitable for all DFDL models
c) If DFDL annotations are removed, the resulting pure XSD will not always be valid (ie, the equivalent XML is ambiguous and can't be modelled by XML Schema 1.0)
Ongoing in case another solution can be found.
29/04: Will ask DG and S Gao for oppinion before closing
038
        MB: Submit response to OMG RFI for non-XML standardization
22/04: First step is for MB to mail the OGF Data Area chair to say that we want to submit
29/04: MB has been in contact with OMG and will sunbit dfdl.
039
        SKK: Approach for creating Schema-For-DFDL xsds.
22/04: Resolve issue around multiple declarations needed for DFDL properties, perhaps using MB's meta approach
29/04: Don't like qualified attributes in long form. SKK to check there are no code gen implications, eg EMF.

Alan Powell

MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley,  Winchester, SO21 2JN, England
Notes Id: Alan Powell/UK/IBM     email: alan_powell at uk.ibm.com
Tel: +44 (0)1962 815073                  Fax: +44 (0)1962 816898

________________________________

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

--
 dfdl-wg mailing list
 dfdl-wg at ogf.org
 http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg

________________________________

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/dfdl-wg/attachments/20090506/55177988/attachment-0001.html 