[DFDL-WG] Minutes for OGF DFDL Working Group Call, January-20-2010
Alan Powell
alan_powell at uk.ibm.com
Thu Jan 21 09:38:01 CST 2010
Open Grid Forum: Data Format Description Language Working Group
OGF DFDL Working Group Call, January-20-2010
Attendees
Mike Beckerle (Oco)
Steve Hanson (IBM)
Alan Powell (IBM)
Steve Marting (Progeny)
Suman Kalia (IBM)
Peter Lambros (IBM)
Apologies
Stephanie Fetzer (IBM)
Tim Kimber(IBM)
1. 045 - Disciminators
Mike has started to write proposal.
2 Unparsing lengthKind = 'pattern'
The Specification currently says that on unparsing
dfdl:lengthKind='pattern' behaves like dfdl:lenghtKind='implict' but since
we limited 'implict' to certain logical/representation combinations this
is no longer correct.
Proposals
1. When unparsing complex elements with dfdl:lengthKind='pattern', the
length is the length of the children (same as 'implicit')
When unparsing simple elements with dfdl:lengthKind='pattern' the length
is the implicit length for those that have one and length of the data
supplied in the infoset converted to the representation with no
padding/filling for the rest.
For string/text and hexbinary/binary that is reasonable
For number/text/standard and zoned it is governed by the numberPattern
For number/binary/ binary use 'implicit' lengths
For number/binary/packed or bcd use minimum number of bytes
For Calendar/text it is governed by the calendarpattern
For Calendar/binary/packed or bcd use minimum number of bytes
For Calendar/binary/binarymilliseconds or binaryseconds use implicit
lengths
For Boolean/text use the length of the true/false rep.
For Boolean/binary use implicit length (32)
2. A new property dfdl:patternOutputLengthKind
3. We could limit dfdl:lenghtKind 'pattern' to complex elements so that
there is always a lengthKind for child simple elements but this would
introduce 'unnecessary' complex items in the infoset when there is only
one child.
The WG decided that option 1 was preferable but it needs to be written in
terms of a set of 'base' unparsing rules which are augmented depending
on the dfdl:lengthKind.
There was some discussion about whether the pattern should be reapplied to
the data stream produced to ensure that it could be parsed by the same
schema. Perhaps this should be part of validation. There was no agreement.
MB suggested that dfdl:lengthKind 'pattern' should only be allowed for
elements with representation 'text' and complex elements with children all
'text'. Steve H felt that it was needed for complex elements containing
binary data.
Alan will write up 'base' unparsing length rules.
3. TLOG
Steve H took us through his further investigation of TLog format
Finally had some time to look at the TLOG stuff again (the format emitted
by IBM 4680 & 4690 POS controllers). This time I've looked at the MRM
code, & spoken with domain expert David Bennett, to establish the full
behaviour. Unfortunately there are some issues which mean DFDL 1.0 is not
capable of handling it.
1. The individual fields are a mixture of ASCII strings, proprietary
packed strings (rare), proprietary packed decimals, binary integers
(rare). All fields are delimited by a separator.
2. The fields are all defined with a length in bytes, but most of the
string and decimal fields are actually variable length. If the data
exceeds the length in bytes when parsing or unparsing the MRM throws an
error. However, talking to David B, the length is really intended to be
used if there was ever a fixed length equivalent format, so is really for
validation only. To parse the current TLOG formats it is sufficient to use
the delimiter.
Note to WG: Validation using the specified length only works for strings.
Should we allow dfdl:length to be specified when dfdl:lengthKind=delimited
or pattern, and use it as an extra constraint when parsing/unparsing?
3. Scanning for the separator, or maybe use of a data pattern, is needed
to extract the variable length data, including packed decimal data (which
we would consider a binary type).
Note to WG: Should we allow binary scanning when the users says it is safe
to do so?
4. Packed strings. This is a packed data type used when the range of
possible chars in the string is limited to 0-9, A-F. You can view this as
a BCD that can also carry A-F. MRM does not try to turn this into an
integer, instead it treats it as character data. That is x12x34 would
result in string '1234'. Odd numbers of digits are padded with a x0
nibble. On unparsing the MRM throws an error if a character other than
0-9, A-F is encountered. In practice, these packed strings are rare and
invariably only carry 0-9 anyway. I'm still trying to establish why this
data type is needed, as it could be treated as a logical integer and
modelled as BCD.
5. Packed decimals. Like a packed decimal in the IBM sense. These can
carry negative numbers but use a leading xD sign nibble. No sign nibble if
positive. Odd number of digits (including sign if present) are padded with
xF nibble. This is best illustrated using examples.
1234 => x12x34
123 => xF1x23
-1234 => xFDx12x34
-123 => xD1x23
Note to WG: Should we support this data type natively?
6. Some of the packed decimals are interpreted as an array of bit flags. I
assume that DFDL would model these using dfdl:hidden.
Steve H is going to make a proposal about how DFDL can parse TLog
4, Empty Sequences
Is the current section correct
1.1 Empty Sequences
A sequence having no children is syntactically legal in DFDL; however, a
sequence having no children must have content length zero. It can still
have non-zero length Prefix and Suffix regions, but the SequenceContent
region in between must be of length zero. It is a schema definition error
if the SequenceContent region of an empty sequence is not length zero.
Steve H will re-word.
5. Mike/Steve review issues
Mike B had to leave but a number a issues were discussed
- Case of enumerations. We should follow the XSDL convention which is that
enumerations are case sensitive
- dfdl:lengthKind='Pattern: dfdl entities will be allowed in the
lengthPattern regular expression except for generic entities such as WSP
and NL
- dfdl:lengthKind='Pattern scannability: A complex element with
lengthKind=Pattern will use its dfdl:encoding property as the encoding
when scanning its children irrespective of the child's encoding property.
Mike to comment on remaining review issues.
6. Go through remaining actions
Updated below
Action 071 Semantics of length=0, nil handling and defaults.
1) Steve H to propose new name for dfdl:defaultValueInitiatorPolicy
Looking more at this, we should be consistent with the similar property
for missing separators. So I've changed the enums too - now 'require' and
'suppress', Also changed unparsing behaviour - we must honour the property
- the existing behaviour of always writing the initiator means we can not
successfully re-parse if writing empty content and enum is 'suppress'.
When reading, assume that section 15.13 has been updated to include
complex as well as simple elements.
missingValueInitiatorPolicy
Enum
Valid values ?require', ?suppress'
Specifies whether to expect an initiator when an element is missing.
Ignored unless dfdl:initiator is specified and is not "" (empty string).
'require' - Indicates that the dfdl:initiator followed by empty content
is the required syntax to indicate that the element is missing.
'suppress' - Indicates that empty content is the required syntax to
indicate that the element is missing. The presence of an initiator implies
that real content must follow.
Use of ?suppress? implies an ordered sequence. If used on an initiated
element of an unordered group it is a schema definition error.
If the element is required, defaulting occurs as defined above.
This property also applies on unparsing, when the data to be written
(after nil value and default value processing) is empty content.
Annotation: dfdl:element
We should similarly change the enums for nilValueInitiatorPolicy to
'require' and 'suppress'.
2) Not recorded in minutes, but there was a discussion around my bullet on
choices.
Worth noting that the concept of 'required' for the elements of a choice
does not apply. Even if minOccurs > 0.
The issue was on unparsing. Which branch of a choice do we output when a
complex element is required but missing from the infoset? I think it
should be the first branch of the choice that does not result in a
processing error.
NOTE: Work Item 071 changes dfdl:separatorPolicy enumeration from require
to always. Need to make sure that is consistent with this proposal.
7 Review Schedule
OGF prereview is confirmed to take about 4 weeks assuming no document
updates are required. We are behind schedule to be available for public
review by March. Draft 038 will be available at the end of this week.
Activity
Schedule
Who
Complete Action items
- 18 Dec 2009
WG
Complete Spec
Write up work items
? 23 Dec 2009
AP
Restructure and complete specification
- 23 Dec 2009
AP
Issue Draft 038
23 Dec 2009
WG review
WG review
7 Dec ? 08 Jan 2010
WG
Incorporate review comments
4 Jan - 29 Jan 2010
AP +
Issue Draft 039
15 Jan 2010
Incorporate review comments
4 Jan - 29 Jan 2010
AP +
Issue Draft 040
29 Jan 2010
Initial OGF Editor Review
Initial Editor review
1 Feb - 1 Mar 2010
OGF
Initial GFSG review
1 Feb - 1 Mar 2010
Issue Draft 041
1 Mar 2010
OGF Public Comment period (60 days)
1 Mar - 30 Apr 2010
OGF
OGF 28 Munich
15-19 March 2010
Incorporate comments
Incorporate comments
28 May 2010
Issue Draft 042
28 May 2010
Final OGF Editor Review
Final Editor review
June 2010
OGF
final GFSG review
June 2010
Issue Final specification
30 June 2010
Publish proposed recommendation
1 July 2010
Grid recommendation process
1 Jan - 1 April 2011
Meeting closed, 14:30
Next call Tuesday 26 January 2010 13:00 UK and Wednesday 27th January
2010 13:00 UK.
Next action: 076
Actions raised at this meeting
No
Action
074
SH: Proposal for parsing TLog
075
SH: rewrite empty sequences section
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
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 progess
20/01: no progess
064
MB/SH Request WG presentation at OGF 28
25/11: Session requested
04/12: no update
09/12: no update
16/12: SH has changed request to a general session rather tha WG in the
hope of attracting more people.
23/12: no update
06/01: not heard anything yet
13/01: no update
20/01: no update
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
071
Semantics of length=0, nil handling and defaults.
23/12:SH no update
06/01: SH has started
13/01: SH proposal review. Minor updates to be made
20/01: Reviewed updated proposal. Need to agree on unparsing empty
choices.
074
SH: Proposal for parsing TLog
075
SH: rewrite empty sequences section
Closed actions
No
Action
056
MB Resolve lengthUnits=bits including fillbytes
12/08: No Progress
...
28/10: no progress
04/11: MB to look at lengthUnits = bits
11/11: no update
18/11: no update
25/11: no update
04/12: no update. ALan will set up a separate call to progress this
action.
09/12: no update. ALan will set up a separate call to progress this
action.
16/12: MB, SH and AP had a separate call. MB to distribute proposal
23/12: Discussed proposal. MB will updated
06/01: V4 discussed and approved
13/01: Mike updated proposal. Closed
073
SH: Control of overpunching zoned positive sign
13/01: no update
20/01: Proposal agreed. Closed
Work items:
No
Item
target version
status
005
Improvements on property descriptions
not started
011
How speculative parsing works (combining choice and variable-occurence -
currently these are separate) (from action 045)
awaiting completion of actions 045
012
Reordering the properties discussion: move representation earlier, improve
flow of topics
not started
036
Update dfdl schema with change properties
ongoing
038
Improve length section including bit handling
038
some improvement in 036
042
Mapping of the DFDL infoset to XDM
none
not required for V1 specification
069
ICU fractional seconds
038
070
Write DFDL primer
071
Write test cases.
072
it is a processing error if the number of occurrences in the data does not
match the value of the expression or prefix
038
073
Rename dfdl:separatorPolicy="required" to "always".
038
074
- Last 'postFix' separator is not optional
- Terminators are mandatory.
- dfdl:documentFinalTerminatorCanBeMissing
- dfdl:documentFinalSeparatorCanBeMissing (Action (70))
038
075
Remove occursCountKind="useAvailableSpace".
038
076
dfdl:documentRoot, will be defined that can only be on global elements.
The DFDL spec does not have to define the format of parameters to the DFDL
processor but will indicate that it must be possible to adresss any
element.
Agreed that ANY element within the schema cane be the starting point for
parsing or unparsing.
dfdl:documentRoot no longer required
038
077
'delimited' means the item is delimited by the item?s terminator (if
specified) or an enclosing construct?s separator or end of the enclosing
construct designated by its known length or its terminator.
The definition of EndOfParent also needs improving.
038
078
document UPA checks
038
079
Restrictions on use of 'special' entities in regular expressions
038
080
LengthUnit=bits (A056)
038
081
Case of enumerations. We should follow the XSDL convention which is that
enumerations are case sensitive
038
082
dfdl:lengthKind='Pattern: dfdl entities will be allowed in the
lengthPattern regular expression except for generic entities such as WSP
and NL
038
083
dfdl:lengthKind='Pattern scannability: A complex element with
lengthKind=Pattern will use its dfdl:encoding property as the encoding
when scanning its children irrespective of the child's encoding property.
038
084
Control of overpunching zoned positive sign
038
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/20100121/6299595f/attachment-0001.html
More information about the dfdl-wg
mailing list