[DFDL-WG] Agenda for OGF DFDL WG call 17 February 2010- 13:00 UK (8:00 ET)

Tue Feb 16 10:36:00 CST 2010

1. Comments of latest discriminators doc v5. 

 2. Remaining 037 review issues 

16.2 scannablility with lengthKind pattern:   
Confirm that this is what we agreed 
In summary, you can use a data pattern on any element (complex, simple 
text, simple binary) as long as the bytes are legal in the stated 
encoding, which where binary data is involved in practice means an 8-bit 
ASCII encoding. 

By 8-bit ASCII we really mean an encoding where all the codepoints from 
0-255 map to the equivalent value. Subsequent investigation indicates that 
'all' 8-bit ASCII encodings have gaps so there isn't a valid character. 
Mike has suggested 
1) for all ascii-based character sets, we say that bytes 0x00 to 0xFF all 
map to exactly those codepoints in ISO 10646 for the infoset, and vice 
versa. 

2) define dfdl:encoding="bytes" as a special character set name which has 
the above property. 
Action rasied

3. Go through Actions 
see below

4. Biztalk comparison
Discuss analysis of Biztalk function.

Current Actions:
No
Action 

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 
...
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: Absorbing action 033 into 045.  Maybe decorated discrminator kinds 
are needed after all. MB and SF to continue with examples. 
18/11: Went through WTX implementation of example. SF to gather more 
documentation about WTX discriminator rules.
25/11: Further discussion. Will get more WTX documentation. Need to 
confirm that no changes need to Resolving Uncertainty doc.
04/11: Further discussion about arrays.
09/12: Reviewed proposed discriminator semantic.
16/12: Reviewed discriminator examples and WTX semantic.
23/12: SF to provide better description of WTX behaviour and invite B 
Connolley to next call
06/01:B Connolly not available. SF to provide more complete description.
13/01: Stephaine took us through a description of WTX identifiers. Mike 
agreed to write up in DFDL terms.
20/01: Mike will write up
27/01: further discussion of discriminators
29/01: Alan had  emailed both proposals but not enough time to discuss
02/02: Agreed to adopt 'component exists' semantics for discriminators
10/02: 'component exists' proposal updated. comments by next call.
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.
...
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: no update
18/11: no update
25/11: Agreed to try to produce for CSV and fixed formats
04/12: no update
09/12: no update
16/12: no update
23/12: no update
06/01: no progress. If there is no resource to complete this action it can 
be deferred
13/01:no progress
20/01: no progress
27/01: no progress
29/01: No progress.  The predefined formats do not need to be available 
when the spec is published.
Suman said that he had been mapping COBOL structures to DFDL and it didn't 
look as though the way text numbers are define is very usable. He will 
document for next call 
03/02: No progress
10/02: No progress
066
Investigate format for defining test cases
25/11:IBM to see if it is possible to publish its test case format.
04/12: no update
09/12: no update
16/12: reminded dent to project manager
23/12: SH will send another reminder.
06/01: Another reminder will be sent
13/01: no update
20/01: no update
27/01: no progress
29/01: no progress
03/02: IBM is still investigating
10/02: IBM is still investigating
079
AP:Encoding for binary fields when lenghtkind is pattern
080
AP:Clarify semantics of fn:poisition and fn:count
081
AP: Inf and Nan
The description is the way ICU behaves but need clarification. It isn't 
clear how inf and Nan are represented in the infoset. Need to investigate 
if XML allows these values
082
MB: Should alignment be 0 or 1 based

Regards

Alan Powell

Development - MQSeries, Message Broker, ESB
IBM Software Group, Application and Integration Middleware Software
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBM
MP211, Hursley Park
Hursley, SO21 2JN
United Kingdom
Phone: +44-1962-815073
e-mail: alan_powell at uk.ibm.com

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/20100216/fcb1d81a/attachment.html 