[DFDL-WG] Agenda for OGF DFDL WG call 14 Octobert 2009 - 13:00 UK (8:00 ET),
Alan Powell
alan_powell at uk.ibm.com
Tue Oct 13 11:24:04 CDT 2009
Note: I cannot make this call so can Steve take notes please?
1. 051 Scoping Rules
Review new description (email Scoping Rules with Schema default
13/10/2009) and examples.
2. Binary/Boolean
For a Boolean with representation='binary' you can specify separate
values for true and false. However you cannot say true = 0 and false =
non-zero (or vice versa). I suggest we need a simple way to specify
'non-zero'
3. NumberBase and textNumberxxx (email Problem with dfdl:numberBase and
number representation properties 9/10/2009)
It looks as though we didn't properly consider dfdl:NumberBase when
defining the number representation properties as they mostly assume base
10.
dfdl:numberBase should be ignored if textNumberRepresentation is 'zoned'.
The dfdl:textNumberFormat properties which are really only for decimal
numbers so perhaps dfdl:NumberBase should be moved out.
The alternative is to say which of the dfdl:textNumberFormat properties
apply when dfdl:numberBase is not '10'
4. Validating min/maxOccurs (email Validation of min/mxOccurs 8/10/2009)
Tim Kimber had asked some questions about min/maxOccurs which I answered
concluding:
"So if an array has too few occurrences (and no default) it is a
processing error, if it has too many it is a validation error "
The WG should confirm this conclusion
5. 045 Resolving points of uncertainty and parsing rules
Review latest draft.
6. Comments on Draft 036
Please review the latest draft
7. Go through remaining actions
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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 refind. Details in minutes.
054
ICU DecimalNumber/ Calendar behaviour
15/07: No progress
29/07: No Progress.
05/08: No Progress. This action is to discover and document ICU behaviour.
DFDL will do whatever ICU does.
12/08: No Progress
19/09: More examples of inconsistent behaviour discovered
09/09: no progress
16/09: no progress
30/09: no progress
07/10: no progress
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
059
9/9: define how encoding, byteorder and floating point format externally
16/09: no progress
07/10: no progress
060
Should dfdl bcome more type oriented and split dfdl:properties between
eleement and simpleType/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
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/20091013/0cf71a13/attachment.html
More information about the dfdl-wg
mailing list