[DFDL-WG] Grammar issue - simple and complex asymetry

Tue May 19 16:47:35 CDT 2009

To me, no properties apply to a complex type, rather they apply to the model
group (sequence or choice) which is the meaning of the complex type.

That is, we don't have to distinguish a complex type from the model group
that defines it. 

...mike

  _____  

From: Alan Powell [mailto:alan_powell at uk.ibm.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 11:50 AM
To: mbeckerle.dfdl at gmail.com
Cc: dfdl-wg at ogf.org; dfdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org
Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Grammar issue - simple and complex asymetry

Mike 

That looks reasonable. 

However as you must still be able to specify dfdl:initiator/terminator on
the complexType for scoping we need to somehow make it clear that the
grammar describes where the properties APPLY not where they are SPECIFIED. 

Do any properties APPLY to a complexType? 

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

From: 	"Mike Beckerle" <mbeckerle.dfdl at gmail.com> 

To: 	<dfdl-wg at ogf.org> 

Date: 	13/05/2009 20:09 

Subject: 	[DFDL-WG] Grammar issue - simple and complex asymetry

  _____  

The draft 034 grammar productions do not allow for a separate prefix/suffix
for a simple type as distinguished from the element having that type. 

Draft 034 does allow for an element of complex type to have a separate
prefix and suffix for the element itself and another one for the sequence or
choice inside it. 

I've come to believe this is a mistake and I suggest a fix below. 

Right now the grammar is: 

Element  = SimpleElement | ComplexElement 

SimpleElement = Prefix SimpleContent Suffix 

SimpleContent = StringText // terminal. No more prefixes/suffixes 

ComplexElement = Prefix ComplexContent Suffix 

ComplexContent = Sequence | Choice 

Sequence = Prefix SequenceContent Suffix 
Choice = Prefix ChoiceContent Suffix 

So, if I do: 

<complexType dfdl:initiator="[" dfdl:terminator="]"> 
... 
<element name="y"> 
  <complexType> 
  <sequence dfdl:separator="," > 
     <element name="x" type="int"/> 
     <element name="z" type="int"/> 
  </sequence> 
</complexType> 
</element> 
... 
</complexType> 

I have two prefix opportunities. I can flatten the productions above to: 

ComplexElement = Prefix Prefix SequenceContent Suffix Suffix 

An instance of this type would look like [[[5],[6]]]. That is, for complex
types, there are separate prefix and suffix regions for the element, and for
the model-group which makes up its content. 

The first [ initiates element y. 
The second [ initiates the sequence 
The third [ initiates element x. 

This same behavior is not true for simple types: 

<complexType dfdl:initiator="[" dfdl:terminator="]"> 
... 

<element name="y" > 
  <simpleType> 
    <restriction base="int"/> 
  </simpleType> 
</element> 
... 
</complexType> 

This can only mean [5]. The grammar, as formulated in draft 034, does not
allow for more than one prefix or suffix. 
The [ is the initiator of element y. 

I believe we should fix this as follows. New grammar: 

Element  = SimpleElement | ComplexElement 

SimpleElement = Prefix SimpleContent Suffix 

SimpleContent = StringText 

ComplexElement = ComplexContent // Note: no more surrounding prefix suffix. 

ComplexContent = Sequence | Choice 

Sequence = Prefix SequenceContent Suffix 
Choice = Prefix ChoiceContent Suffix 

The above grammar arranges for an element of complex type and its model
group to both taken together specify a single prefix and suffix. 

Revisiting our example (just repeating it here): 

<complexType dfdl:initiator="[" dfdl:terminator="]"> 
... 
<element name="y"> 
  <complexType> 
  <sequence dfdl:separator="," > 
     <element name="x" type="int"/> 
     <element name="z" type="int"/> 
  </sequence> 
</complexType> 
</element> 
... 
</complexType> 

An instance now would look like [[5],[6]] 

The first [ is the initiator of element y, which is the same as the
initiator of the sequence that is its type. 
The second [ is the initiator of element x. (which is the same as the
initiator of the int that is its type) 

I believe this is more sensible, as it makes the behavior of simple and
complex types more similar. 

It begs the question of how one combines conflicting properties on an
element with the properties on the type, and even the model group inside the
type in the complex case. Because all these properties are describing the
same syntax fields in the grammar. 

That's a separate topic in a subsequent email. 
 --
 dfdl-wg mailing list
 dfdl-wg at ogf.org
  <http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg>
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/20090519/4668123e/attachment-0001.html 