[DFDL-WG] Fw: Agenda for OGF DFDL WG call 11 November 2009 - 13:00 UK (8:00 ET)

[Steve Hanson]

Agenda:
Alan is on leave today so call will be run by Steve H

1. 051 Scoping Rules 
Review Suman's selectors examples

2. 061 Refactor dfdl:textNumberFormat to remove dfdl:numberBase.
Review Alan's updated spec fragment (see e-mail)

3. 059: External specification of encoding, byte order
Review Steve H's proposal (see e-mail)

4. 045 Resolving points of uncertainty and parsing rules 
Continue discussion of semantics of discriminators and arrays
Use web meeting to discuss Mike B's example (see e-mail)
https://www2.gotomeeting.com/join/319038563

6. Test suite for DFDL
Discuss Mike's e-mail and what IBM is doing as part of its implementation 
work

5. Go through remaining actions 
 
6. Plan to finish DFDL v1 
Updated strawman schedule 
Activity 
Schedule 
Who 
Resolve Action items 
             - 23 Nov 2009 
 WG 
Write up work items 
16 Nov - 4 Dec 2009 
AP 
Restructure and complete specification
23 Nov - 4 Dec 2009
AP 
WG review 
7 Dec - 18 Dec 2009
WG 
Incorporate review comments 
4 Jan - 29 Jan 2010
AP +
OGF Editor Review / Incorporate changes
1 Feb - 1 Mar 2010
OGF 
OGF Public Comment period (60 days) 
1 Mar - 30 Apr 2010
OGF 
OGF 28 Munich 
15-19 March 2010 



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
06/05: No progress
13/05: Calendar has been added to latest spec version v034 but still a few 
details to clarify.
20/05: No Progress
27/05: No Progress
03/06: No Progress (low priority)
09/06: No Progress (low priority)
17/06: SH to check ICU code for lax calendar behaviour
24/06: no progress
01/07: no progress
15/07: no progress
29/07: no progress
05/08: no progress
12/08: no progress
19/08: Inconsistencies are being found in ICU behaviour so Calendars need 
reviewing again.
26/08: Specific three character short time zones may not be  maintained 
during round tripping when there is more than one short form for a time 
zone offset. Because dates and datetimes in the infoset only maintain a 
time zone offset so on unparsing it isn't possible to say which short form 
will be selected for a particular offset when there is more than one 
possible. Need to document.
09/09: no progress
16/09: no progress
30/09: no progress
07/10: no progress
14/10: no progress
21/10: Will produce a list of known issues.
28/10: Discussed ICU farctional seconds behaviour. SF to send latest 
understanding.
04/11: no progress
11/11:
033
MB: Need for scope indicator on discriminator
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 
06/05: Discussed suggestion of adding type indicator to discriminator. MB 
to provide examples.
15/03: Semantic documented in v034. MB to provide examples of need for 
scope indicator on discriminator
20/05: MB to provide examples of need for scope indicator on discriminator 
(but lower priority than action 029)
27/05: No Progress (lower priority)
....
19/08: No Progress (lower priority)
26/08: No Progress (lower priority)
09/09: no progress
16/09: no progress
30/09: no progress
07/10: no progress
14/10: Action re-titled and assigned to Mike B
21/10: no progress
28/10: no progress
04/11: Mike to produce examples for choices with variable occurrence 
arrays.
11/11:
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 opinion before closing
06/05: Discussed S Gao email and suggestions. Decided need to review all 
XML UPA rules and decide which apply to dfdl.
20/05: SH or SKK to investigate
27/05: No Progress
03/06: The concern is that some dfdl schemas will fail UPA check when 
validation is turned on or when editted using tooling that enforces UPA 
checks. Renaming fields will resolve some/most issues. Need documentation 
that  describes issue and best practice.
17/06: no change
24/06: no change
01/07: no prgress
15/07: No Progress (lower priority)
29/07: No Progress (lower priority)
05/08: No Progress (lower priority)
12/08: No Progress (lower priority)
19/08: Clarify that this action is to go through the XML UPA checks to 
assess impact on dfdl schemas and advice best practice. Name clashes is 
just one example. SH or SKK
26/08: No Progress (lower priority)
09/09: no progress
16/09: no progress
30/09: no progress
07/10: no progress
14/10: no progress
21/10: no progress
28/10: no progress
04/11: no progress
11/11:
045
20/05 AP: Speculative Parsing
27/05: Psuedo code has been circulated. Review for next call
03/06: Comments received and will be incorporated
09/06: Progress but not discussed
17/06: Discussed briefly
24/06: No Progress
01/07: No Progress
15/07: No progress. MB not happy with the way the algorithm is documented, 
need to find a better way.
29/07: No Progress 
05/08: No Progress. Will document behaviour as a set of rules.
12/08: No Progress 
19/08: No Progress 
26/08: No Progress 
09/09: no progress
16/09: no progress
30/09: AP distributed proposal and others commented. Brief discussion AP 
to incorporate update and reissue
07/10: Updated proposal was discussed.Comments will be incorporated into 
the next version.
14/10: Alan to update proposal to include array scenario where minOccurs > 
0
21/10: Updated proposal reviewed
28/10: Updated proposal reviewed see minutes
04/11: Discussed semantics of disciminators on arrays. MB to produce 
examples
11/11:
049
20/05 AP Built-in specification description and schemas
03/06: not discussed
24/06: No Progress
24/06: No Progress (hope to get these from test cases)
15/07: No progress. Once available, the examples in the spec should use 
the dfdl:defineFormat annotations they provide.
.....
19/08: No Progress (lower priority)
26/08: No Progress (lower priority)
09/09: no progress
30/09: no progress
07/10: no progress
14/10: no progress
21/10: Discussed the real need for this being in the specification. It 
seemed that the main value is it define a schema location for downloading 
'known' defaults from the web. 
28/10: no progress
04/11: no progress
11/11:
051
Scoping rules.
MB: to document change to scoping rules to satisfy implementation concerns
17/06: MB and SH proposals discussed. Needs further discussion
24/06: AP to update presentation with latest proosal
24/06: AP had updated presentation. MB to review
08/07: Discussed at length. Simple types will now take annotations. 
Variables will be used for parameters.
15/07: No further progress. Needs final write up.
29/07: No Progress
05/08: No Progress 
12/08: No Progress 
19/08: AP will document new syntax rules.
26/08: No Progress 
09/09: AP has documented new scoping rules. Not discussed
16/09: Not disussed. AP to update element reference examples
30/09: Significant dissatisfaction with proposed new rules. New proposal 
developed during call. AP to document.
07/10: New proposal was refined. Details in minutes.
14/10: Discussed at length. Details in minutes. 
21/10: Discussed at length. Details in minutes. 
04/11: defineFormat can only contain one active format block, Drop 
baseFormat, SKK to produce examples for selectors.
04/11: Further discussion see minutes. SKK to produce examples of 
selectors.
11/11:
056
resolve lenghtUnit=bits including fillbytes
12/08: No Progress
19/08: No Progress
26/08: No Progress 
09/09: no progress
30/09: no progress
07/10: no progress
14/10: no progress
21/10: no progress
28/10: no progress
04/11: MB to look at lengthUints = bits
11/11:
059
9/9: define how encoding,  byteorder and floating point format externally
16/09: no progress
07/10: no progress
14/10: no progress
21/10: SH to investigate
28/10: no progress
04/11: no progress
11/11:
061
Refactor dfdl:textNumberFormat to remove dfdl:numberBase. 
14/10: Base 2, 8, 16 numbers are invariably integers without formatting, 
use of pattern etc is overkill
21/10: no progress
28/10: no progress
04/11: no progress
11/11:
062
SH investigate technical writer support.
28/10: SH had contacted S Gao to understand the W3 process and support. 
04/11: no progress
11/11:
063
Write DFDL primer and test cases.
11/11:


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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/dfdl-wg/attachments/20091111/cd871815/attachment-0001.html