[DFDL-WG] Latest draft of DFDL 1.0 specification - trackers created
Sill, Alan
alan.sill at ttu.edu
Fri Sep 13 17:22:51 EDT 2013
Thanks, Mike. We will look at these at the GFSG meeting Sunday evening in Madrid.
Alan
On Sep 13, 2013, at 3:41 PM, Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I've attached the spec to the tracker for it.
>
> Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com
> Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Steve Hanson <smh at uk.ibm.com> wrote:
> Greg, Alan
>
> Thanks for the advice. I have read the page and also GFD.152. I have created the following:
>
> 1) https://redmine.ogf.org/issues/117: DFDL 1.0 Specification (revision)
> - GWD-PR
> - Hoping Mike will be able to attach the document later today
>
> 2) https://redmine.ogf.org/issues/118: DFDL 1.0 Experience document #1
> - GWD-E
> - Document attached
>
> 3) https://redmine.ogf.org/issues/119: DFDL 1.0 Experience document #2
> - GWD-E
> - I will attach document later today
>
> I marked 2 and 3 as 'High priority' but can't update 1 to be the same.
>
> 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: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill at ttu.edu>
> To: Greg Newby <gbnewby at alaska.edu>,
> Cc: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill at ttu.edu>, Steve Hanson/UK/IBM at IBMGB, "dfdl-wg at ogf.org" <dfdl-wg at ogf.org>, "David E. Martin" <martinde at northwestern.edu>
> Date: 12/09/2013 22:50
> Subject: Re: Latest draft of DFDL 1.0 specification
>
>
>
> Thanks, Greg.
>
> Steve, that link to the Editor project is http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/editor
>
> You may be interested in pointing your members to the overall description of the different types of OGF documents and their use, along with various other useful links including copies of the document template that include the latest IPR boilerplate, at the link below.
>
> http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/editor/wiki/About_OGF_Documents
>
> I recommend that everyone involved read this page.
>
> As we are meeting for the GFSG this coming Sunday in Madrid, getting something in front of us that we can act on then, at least to get the review process started, would be the most expeditious way to proceed.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Alan
>
> On Sep 12, 2013, at 1:07 PM, Greg Newby <gbnewby at alaska.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > Understood, and no problem for pre-allocating a number. Would you
> > please make a new tracker in the Editor pipeline, so I can put the number
> > there? That's where we keep track of assigned numbers. It's ok
> > if you don't add the draft document yet.
> >
> > The idea of an expedited review process seems reasonable to me. Once
> > we have the document, we can bring that suggestion to the GFSG for
> > their decision on how to handle it. I'm sure they'll be receptive.
> >
> > -- Greg
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 09:52:23AM +0100, Steve Hanson wrote:
> >> Greg
> >>
> >> GFD.152 implies that there is a 15-day GFSG review followed by a 60-day
> >> public comment period. We had a public comment period for GFD.174, and the
> >> changes in the revision are based on actual experience from implementers
> >> and users. I would question whether the public comment period is
> >> necessary for the revision, and request that the revision just undergoes
> >> the 15-day GFSG review. There will no doubt be a few more errata as
> >> implementations progress further, and so we anticipate one more revision
> >> at some point in the future, and that is the revision that would move to
> >> full Grid Recommendation.
> >>
> >> We are on a tight schedule and want to publish by end of September. We
> >> have users eagerly awaiting the appearance of the revision, and to publish
> >> an internal WG draft is not appropriate (IBM product infocenters embed the
> >> HTML rendering of the spec so needs to be official document).
> >>
> >> We requested the GFD number simply so that Mike Beckerle can complete the
> >> document edits. The document pushes the boundaries of MS Word and I think
> >> Mike also uses an additional plugin, so edits are best done by him.
> >>
> >> 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: Greg Newby <gbnewby at alaska.edu>
> >> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM at IBMGB,
> >> Cc: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill at ttu.edu>, "dfdl-wg at ogf.org"
> >> <dfdl-wg at ogf.org>, "David E. Martin" <martinde at northwestern.edu>
> >> Date: 11/09/2013 21:07
> >> Subject: Re: Latest draft of DFDL 1.0 specification
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Steve,
> >>
> >> Is this document in the editor pipeline somewhere? I'm
> >> not seeing it:
> >> https://redmine.ogf.org/projects/editor/issues
> >>
> >> Usually we wait until a document has undergone most of the
> >> review process (per GFD #152) before assigning a GFD number.
> >> If you have a reason to need one sooner, we can allocate
> >> one sooner. The usual practice, though, is to wait until
> >> publication is imminent.
> >>
> >> We're looking forward to these revisions to #174.
> >> -- Greg
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 06:08:36PM +0100, Steve Hanson wrote:
> >>> Alan, Greg
> >>>
> >>> Please can you allocate us a new GFD number so we can complete the
> >>> document?
> >>>
> >>> 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: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill at ttu.edu>
> >>> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM at IBMGB,
> >>> Cc: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill at ttu.edu>, "dfdl-wg at ogf.org"
> >>> <dfdl-wg at ogf.org>, Greg Newby <gbnewby at alaska.edu>, "David E. Martin"
> >>> <martinde at northwestern.edu>
> >>> Date: 11/09/2013 15:49
> >>> Subject: Re: Latest draft of DFDL 1.0 specification
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sep 11, 2013, at 9:08 AM, Steve Hanson <smh at uk.ibm.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> When you say 'new version' what does that imply about version numbers?
> >>
> >>> The WG still considers what we are working on to be DFDL 1.0 plus
> >> errata.
> >>> Are you suggesting that the new revision is 1.1 ?
> >>>
> >>> OGF doesn't generally have a concept or framework for revision numbers
> >> for
> >>> specifications. Some working groups do number their specifications, and
> >> we
> >>> leave this to the work group to manage.
> >>>
> >>> The process of obsoleting and replacing a document does give a good
> >>> opportunity for changing an internally-managed revision number.
> >>>
> >>> Regarding the next DFDL call, this will be during OGF 39. I could try to
> >>
> >>> join, but that time overlaps one of the sessions that I should attend.
> >>> Perhaps David or Greg (or both) could attend your call at 16:00 Tues
> >> 17th
> >>> September? If so, please provide details. We'll be happy to
> >> communicate
> >>> with you as much as possible on this topic before then, of course.
> >>>
> >>> Alan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 11/09/2013 16:35 -----
> >>>
> >>> From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM
> >>> To: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill at ttu.edu>,
> >>> Cc: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill at ttu.edu>, "dfdl-wg at ogf.org"
> >>> <dfdl-wg at ogf.org>, Greg Newby <gbnewby at alaska.edu>, "David E. Martin"
> >>> <martinde at northwestern.edu>
> >>> Date: 11/09/2013 15:08
> >>> Subject: Re: Latest draft of DFDL 1.0 specification
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Alan
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your reply. I forgot to say that the next call is on Tues
> >> 17th
> >>> September.
> >>>
> >>> I think that the WG would probably go for your 2nd suggestion, ie,
> >> publish
> >>> an updated P_REC that obsoletes GFD.174 but does not yet propose to
> >>> promote the spec to full recommendation status, because we know there
> >> are
> >>> a few more errata that will be discovered before the implementations are
> >>
> >>> completed.
> >>>
> >>> When you say 'new version' what does that imply about version numbers?
> >> The
> >>> WG still considers what we are working on to be DFDL 1.0 plus errata.
> >> Are
> >>> you suggesting that the new revision is 1.1 ?
> >>>
> >>> 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: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill at ttu.edu>
> >>> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM at IBMGB, "David E. Martin"
> >>> <martinde at northwestern.edu>,
> >>> Cc: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill at ttu.edu>, "dfdl-wg at ogf.org"
> >>> <dfdl-wg at ogf.org>, Greg Newby <gbnewby at alaska.edu>
> >>> Date: 11/09/2013 14:51
> >>> Subject: Re: Latest draft of DFDL 1.0 specification
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Steve,
> >>>
> >>> Answers inline. Short summary: My recommendation would be to publish a
> >> new
> >>> version that obsoletes the current GFD.174, and optionally to use this
> >>> opportunity to migrate the specification from a P-REC to full REC
> >> status.
> >>> This would be facilitated by documenting, in any form that is convenient
> >>
> >>> including but not limited to an informational GFD, the experience gained
> >>
> >>> from implementations to date. Another option is to publish an updated
> >>> P_REC that obsoletes GFD.174 but does not yet propose to promote the
> >> spec
> >>> to full recommendation status.
> >>>
> >>> On Sep 11, 2013, at 6:47 AM, Steve Hanson <smh at uk.ibm.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Alan
> >>>>
> >>>> Since the DFDL 1.0 specification was published in Feb 2011, the two
> >>> implementation teams (IBM and the Daffodil project) have identified a
> >>> number of errata in the specification. These have been recorded in an
> >>> errata document held on Redmine. The number of errata is currently at
> >>> around 190, and include both clarifications to the specification and
> >>> changes that affect an implementation, both major and minor. Typically
> >> as
> >>> errata have been raised, the implementation teams include any implied
> >>> changes in the next release of their implementation.
> >>>
> >>> Is there any documentation as to the experience gained from
> >>> implementations that has led to these updates? I as not as an OGF
> >>> requirement, but just for information.
> >>>
> >>>> Both implementation teams, and users of the two implementations, have
> >>> requested that the DFDL 1.0 specification is revised to include all
> >> errata
> >>> to date, so that the specification more closely reflects the
> >>> implementations. Accordingly all errata to date have been incorporated
> >>> into a new revision of the specification, which as a result has grown
> >> from
> >>> 168 pages to 234 pages.
> >>>>
> >>>> This new revision of the specification supersedes the original.
> >>>
> >>> This statement is what leads to my suggestion to publish a new document.
> >>
> >>> Note that our procedures do allow for replacement of a REC or P-REC for
> >>> non-normative changes that do not substantially affect compatibility of
> >>> implementations, but that just clarify or correct errors in the original
> >>
> >>> publication. It is the statement that the new revision supersedes the
> >>> original coupled with your earlier observation that major implementation
> >>
> >>> issues are addressed in your new version that causes me to suggest that
> >>> you pursue a new GFD that obsoletes the old one.
> >>>
> >>>> There is no implementation that exactly reflects the original as
> >>> published on the OGF web site, they both adhere more closely to the new
> >>> revision. The DFDL WG would therefore like to publish the new revision.
> >>> The DFDL WG also recognises that there may be comments against the new
> >>> revision, and that there may still be some errata undetected by the
> >>> implementation teams, so that a further revision may be necessary in the
> >>
> >>> future. Nonetheless it is important that the new revision in its current
> >>
> >>> form is externally visible, and not just kept as an internal working
> >>> document, as there are now many dozens of DFDL users, and they need an
> >>> up-to-date specification. In particular, IBM DFDL wants to ship the HTML
> >>
> >>> version of the new revision to IBM customers in its next release.
> >>>>
> >>>> We are looking to the OGF for guidance on how next to proceed.
> >>>
> >>> My guidance would be to publish a new version that obsoletes the old
> >> one,
> >>> and optionally to use this opportunity to advance the specification from
> >>
> >>> P-REC to REC status. Note that this is exactly the pattern that OGF
> >>> documents are supposed to follow in the life cycle described in GFD.152
> >> --
> >>> experience gained fro real-world implementation is fed back to produce a
> >>
> >>> new version of the specification, which at some point can declare itself
> >>
> >>> to be mature enough to request full REC status.
> >>>
> >>> As for further revisions, they would be handled by the procedure I
> >>> mentioned above: non-normative changes can be folded in as corrections
> >>> through the errata process. THis is controlled by the OGF editor (Greg
> >>> Newby) and whether to accept and publish an errata is decided
> >> essentially
> >>> entirely by his recommendation to the GFSG (Standards Council) to do so.
> >>
> >>> If the changes would affect the interoperability of implementations
> >>> written to the earlier spec in a substantial way, they should be handled
> >>
> >>> by the process of a new publication that obsoletes the old one, as we
> >> have
> >>> just discussed.
> >>>
> >>> The process of going from a P-REC to a REC is largely decoupled from
> >>> errata revisions, but as I have tried to point out, you may be in a
> >>> position do do this at thei point - especially if the group were to
> >>> publish its experiences with the spec as one or more informational
> >>> documents to provide a paper trail motivating the proposed changes.
> >> (This
> >>> part is your choice on how to produce the documentation, which does not
> >>> have to be in the form of a GFD but can and often is done this way. The
> >>> experiences of each group can be jointly or separately documented, at
> >> your
> >>> group's choice.)
> >>>
> >>>> Would it be possible for the OGF to join our next DFDL WG call to
> >>> discuss further? The call is at 16:00 UK (11:00 Eastern).
> >>>
> >>> If today, I can do this if you provide connection details. I include
> >> David
> >>> Martin in this reply in case he is available.
> >>>
> >>> Alan
> >>>
> >>>> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
More information about the dfdl-wg
mailing list