[DFDL-WG] Direct dispatch choice clarifications
Suman Kalia
kalia at ca.ibm.com
Thu Aug 15 13:02:54 EDT 2013
Steve - comments in magenta
Suman Kalia
IBM Canada Lab
WMB Toolkit Architect and Development Lead
Tel: 905-413-3923 T/L 313-3923
Email: kalia at ca.ibm.com
For info on Message broker
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/zones/businessintegration/wmb.html
From: Steve Hanson <smh at uk.ibm.com>
To: Suman Kalia/Toronto/IBM at IBMCA,
Cc: dfdl-wg at ogf.org, dfdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org, Tim Kimber
<KIMBERT at uk.ibm.com>
Date: 08/15/2013 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Direct dispatch choice clarifications
Suman, comments to yours in pink
Regards
Steve Hanson
Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL)
Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group
IBM SWG, Hursley, UK
smh at uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
From: Suman Kalia <kalia at ca.ibm.com>
To: Tim Kimber/UK/IBM at IBMGB,
Cc: dfdl-wg at ogf.org, dfdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org
Date: 15/08/2013 15:31
Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Direct dispatch choice clarifications
Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org
comments in green
Suman Kalia
IBM Canada Lab
WMB Toolkit Architect and Development Lead
Tel: 905-413-3923 T/L 313-3923
Email: kalia at ca.ibm.com
For info on Message broker
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/zones/businessintegration/wmb.html
From: Tim Kimber <KIMBERT at uk.ibm.com>
To: dfdl-wg at ogf.org,
Date: 08/15/2013 09:58 AM
Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Direct dispatch choice clarifications
Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org
See comment in <TK> tags.
regards,
Tim Kimber, DFDL Team,
Hursley, UK
Internet: kimbert at uk.ibm.com
Tel. 01962-816742
Internal tel. 37246742
From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM at IBMGB
To: dfdl-wg at ogf.org,
Date: 15/08/2013 12:57
Subject: [DFDL-WG] Direct dispatch choice clarifications
Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org
Looking at this in more detail prior to writing up behaviour for section
9, there are a couple of things missing from the spec or that need
clarification:
1) Description of elementID property should say that empty string is not
allowed (this was in the erratum).
2) Should say that an elementID on an elementRef overrides any elementID
on the global element (this was in the erratum).
3) Section 15.1.2 says that is a schema definition error if the elementId
values of global elements are not unique within a given namespace. I don't
see where namespace comes into this, the elementID is just a string so
surely it needs to be unique across namespaces? (Strictly elementID needs
only to be unique across the global elements involved in each specific
choice, but it was minuted that global uniqueness was desirable to allow
future xs:any support).
<TK>
In XML Schema, an xs:any does not, in general, match all global elements.
The 'namespace' attribute can narrow the set to elements from a specified
list of namespaces. There is no way in XML Schema 1.0 to further narrow
the xs:any, So the rule is designed to ensure that future usage of xs:any
when a single namespace is specified and processContents!='skip' does not
throw up schema definition errors. However...I note that XML Schema 1.1
allows a new way to narrow the scope of an xs:any ( by specifying a list
of not-included QNames ). My feeling is that the unique-within-namespace
check is fragile.
</TK>
<SK>
As per my recollection, we put the uniqueness rules across namespaces to
accommodate chameleon namespaces. Consider a global element E1 in
notarget namespace having elementID E1_ID and is included in 2
schemas with different target namespaces say TNS1 and TNS2.. Consider a
choice containing element references TNS1:E1 and TNS2:E1, in order to
disambiguate these elements in the context choice, the element ID has to
be unique in the context of namespace. This is somewhat an edge case but
can come more prevalent when the support for xs:any is provided.
</SK>
SMH: In the choice, the element refs to TNS1:E1 and TNS2:E1 both have an
elementID string 'E1_ID' from the original E1 global element. In the
choice, this is an error because the elementID is not unique in the choice
(we match the result of the choiceBranchRef expression, which returns a
string not a QName). The only way round this is to override the elementID
on one of the element refs (see 2 above) and set a value that is unique.
That then works. But that does not help the (future) xs:any scenario,
where there is no element ref to carry the override. I think the chameleon
namespace scenario will always cause a problem with xs:any because our
elementIDs are strings not QNames.
I think we should leave a global element uniqueness check out of DFDL 1.0.
It doesn't actually future proof anything, as once I use xs:any the whole
nature of the xsd changes.
<SK> I was thinking it follows the semantics of QName, if not then we
should skip the global element check all together and ensure elementID are
unique within in the choice </SK>
4) Spec does not explicitly say that when choiceBranchRef is present each
branch of the choice must have an elementID. This must be the case, as
otherwise a choice branch will never be accessible.
5) Tim has suggested that if an element was silent about elementID, the
local name of the element could be used instead. So conceptually an
element would have an 'effective elementID'. This makes modelling easier
if the 'tag' in the data is the same as the element name.
<TK>...or if the element name is derivable from the 'tag' using a simple
XPath expression</TK> SMH: True.
The validation checks would need to ensure that the set of 'effective
elementIDs' was unique; for the global element check as currently
specified (see 3) this would mean that all global elements must have
unique local names, unless an elementID is carried - I think this is too
limiting.
SMH: While defaulting to the local name sounds attractive, I can't
convince myself that it won't cause problems if we add xs:any in DFDL 2.0
and multiple/chameleon namespaces are involved.
SMH: Conclusion: For DFDL 1.0 we take the conservative position and say
that you must specify an elementID on an element that is used in a choice
with choiceBranchRef and it must be unique in the context of the choice
only. No global uniqueness check is made.
>From minutes of 17th April 2012.
145
Provide a 'dispatch' way of discriminating a choice for better performance
of the envelope/payload use case (Steve, Mike, Suman)
12/7: See minutes. Need to choose a proposal and flesh out.
19/07: Waiting for proposals
26/07: Waiting for proposals
16/08: Waiting for proposals. Suman added to action.
...
1/11: Steve to send a proposal
...
21/03: Steve has sent a proposal. Mike has sent a counter proposal. Steve
to respond.
28/03: Steve has sent a revised proposal. Review for discussion next
week. Ensure proposal handles Mike's scenario where tag value to branch
mapping is not 1-1.
05/04: Discussed Mike's review comments and Suman's concerns. Agreed that
name should be elementID, should be a single DFDL String Literal value,
and that matching of choiceBranchRef expression result should only be
against elementID to avoid QName v String confusion. Steve to recirculate
with a schema example.
17/04: Closed. Discussion on whether the choiceBranchRef expression should
retiurn xs:string or something else. Agreed on xs:string. Discussed
whether elemenID should be a pure xs:string or a DFDL String Literal. For
consistency with other DFDL properties it should be a string literal, but
raw byte entities and character classes should be disallowed to avoid
complications. Discussed scope of uniqueness of elementIDs. Agreed that
uniqueness is both local to a choice, and across all global elements in
the same namespace (the latter is not strictly needed right now but
accommodates any future addition of xs:any). Agreed that elementID should
be on global element, local element, and element ref (in which case it
overrides any elementId on the global element, which is ok as the property
does not follow the usual scoping rules). Errata taken.
Regards
Steve Hanson
Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL)
Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group
IBM SWG, Hursley, UK
smh at uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
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
--
dfdl-wg mailing list
dfdl-wg at ogf.org
https://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
--
dfdl-wg mailing list
dfdl-wg at ogf.org
https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg --
dfdl-wg mailing list
dfdl-wg at ogf.org
https://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/20130815/8cd62d76/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the dfdl-wg
mailing list