[DFDL-WG] questions/feedback on dfdl:assert

[Mike Beckerle]

Spec internal draft r13.0 addresses these. Notes below.

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Steve Hanson <smh at uk.ibm.com> wrote:

> Jonathan - some replies below.
>
> Regards
>
> Steve Hanson
> Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL)
> Co-Chair, *OGF DFDL Working Group* <http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/>
> IBM SWG, Hursley, UK*
> **smh at uk.ibm.com* <smh at uk.ibm.com>
> tel:+44-1962-815848
>
>
>
> From:        "Cranford, Jonathan W." <jcranford at mitre.org>
> To:        "dfdl-wg at ogf.org" <dfdl-wg at ogf.org>,
> Date:        09/07/2013 01:17
> Subject:        [DFDL-WG] questions/feedback on dfdl:assert
> Sent by:        dfdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> DFDL WG,
>
> Some questions and feedback on Section 7.3.1 Properties for dfdl:assert.
>  I don’t think any of these are major issues.
>
> > "Schema authors can insert xs:sequence constructs to control the timing
> of evaluation of statements more precisely."
>
> An example here would illustrate and clarify the concept.  This same
> verbiage is used in other sections of the spec, but I would think that only
> a single example would be sufficient to demonstrate the technique.
>
> SMH: This is the sort of thing that we envisaged being covered by one of
> our tutorials, but we will certainly consider adding an example.
>

Example added.

>
> *Under the “test” property:*
> > “The expression must have been evaluated by the time this element and it
> descendents have been processed.”
>
> I’m lost in the grammar here.  Is that equivalent to “The expression must
> be evaluated before this element and its descendants are fully processed”?
>  (Changes highlighted).
>
> Also, should the spec define what it means to “process” an element for
> this statement to have any weight?
>
> SMH: The latest spec draft contains a new section 9.5 which prescribes the
> order in which the different DFDL annotations must be evaluated. I think
> that removes the need for this sentence in its current form and location.
>

This section is integrated into r13.0

>
> > “It is a schema definition error if dfdl:test is the empty string and
> the value is
> not specified and dfdl:testKind is 'expression' or not specified.”
>
> Huh?  If the value of *what* isn’t specified? The value of the
> dfdl:assert annotation?
>
> SMH: Yes, the value of the dfdl:assert annotation. “It is a schema
> definition error if dfdl:testKind is 'expression' or not specified, and an
> expression is not supplied by either the value of the dfdl:assert element
> or the value of the dfdl:test attribute.”
>
>
Steve's suggested wording has been integrated in r13.0.


> *Under the “testPattern” property:*
> > “It is a schema definition error if dfdl:testPattern is the empty string
> and the
> value is not specified and dfdl:testKind is 'pattern'.”
>
> Same comment here.  Should this be “… and the value of the dfdl:assert
> annotation is not specified…”?
>
> SMH: “It is a schema definition error if dfdl:testKind is 'pattern', and a
> pattern is not supplied by either the value of the dfdl:assert element or
> the value of the dfdl:testPattern attribute.”
>
>
Changed wording is in r13.0


> > “In order for a testPattern to be used, the data subject to the pattern
> must be
> scannable using a DFDL regular expression otherwise the results are not
> predictable.”
>
> What does it mean for data to be “scannable”?  Does this mean that the
> representation has to be text, since it's the physical representation of
> the data that is compared to the regular expression?
>
> SMH: Scannable is defined in section 12.3.5.1. It would make better sense
> for it to be defined in section 3 (Glossary) as it is used for both assert
> terstKind 'pattern' and lengthKind 'pattern'.
>
>
Glossary has been updated in r13.0, Section 12.3.5.1 now is a short
sentence referencing the 'scannable' concept.


> Very respectfully,
>
> --
> Jonathan W. Cranford
> Senior Information Systems Engineer
> The MITRE Corporation (http://www.mitre.org)
>  --
>  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
>



-- 
Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology |
www.tresys.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/dfdl-wg/attachments/20130723/cd9e2edc/attachment.html>