[DFDL-WG] Action 276: Erratum 2.100 (was Action 183 - chicken-and-egg situation with lengths given by expressions)
Steve Hanson
smh at uk.ibm.com
Mon Jan 19 13:06:58 EST 2015
Please have a position on the below proposal from IBM for this week's WG
call.
Regards
Steve Hanson
Architect, IBM DFDL
Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group
IBM SWG, Hursley, UK
smh at uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM
To: DFDL-WG <dfdl-wg at ogf.org>
Date: 12/01/2015 18:14
Subject: Fw: [DFDL-WG] Erratum 2.100 (was Action 183 -
chicken-and-egg situation with lengths given by expressions)
After internal discussion, IBM proposes the following:
No new dfdl:lengthKind enums
dfdl:lengthKind 'explicit' is always considered to be 'fixed length'
When dfdl:length is an expression, it is always evaluated when unparsing
If the intent is for the infoset data of the element to provide the
length, the integer element that is the target of the expression should
use dfdl:outputValueCalc with function dfdl:valueLength() referring
forward to the infoset element. (Use of dfdl:contentLength() is a schema
definition error as it can cause deadlock).
It should be noted that dfdl:valueLength() returns an unpadded length.
This does not take into account the XSD minLength or
dfdl:textOutputMinLength properties.
The net is that for simple text elements with dfdl:textPadKind 'padChar',
'delimited', 'pattern', 'prefixed' are considered variable length when
unparsing and are padded to a minimum length, and 'implicit', 'explicit',
'endOfParent' have a target length and are padded to that length.
Similar for xs:hexBinary elements, 'delimited', 'pattern', 'prefixed' are
always padded to a minimum length, and 'implicit', 'explicit',
'endOfParent' are always padded to target length.
So for a text element with dfdl:textPadKind 'padChar', or a xs:hexBinary
element, and its unpaddedLength is less than the minimum, 'explicit'
(expression) is not identical in behaviour to 'prefixed'.
If the last point is thought to be a problem, options are to allow
dfdl:valueLength() to return minimum length or actual length depending on
a new argument, or create a new function to return minimum length. This
can be done under existing deferred action 242.
To verify that these changes fit into the spec ok, I have updated it -
change tracking on and comment for each change.
Regards
Steve Hanson
Architect, IBM DFDL
Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group
IBM SWG, Hursley, UK
smh at uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 12/01/2015 10:20 -----
From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM
To: Tim Kimber/UK/IBM at IBMGB
Cc: "Mike Beckerle" <mbeckerle.dfdl at gmail.com>, DFDL-WG
<dfdl-wg at ogf.org>
Date: 06/01/2015 15:54
Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Erratum 2.100 (was Action 183 -
chicken-and-egg situation with lengths given by expressions)
A thought.
We could add dfdl:lengthKind 'expression', use dfdl:length for the
expression, and add a new enum property that is the policy for the
expression - that is, evaluate on parse only, or evaluate on both parse
and unparse. The enum for the latter is the equivalent of the pre-erratum
2.100 'explicit' and expression behaviour as implemented by IBM DFDL today
- which we would then deprecate in the spec (or even remove) and deprecate
in IBM DFDL.
Regards
Steve Hanson
Architect, IBM DFDL
Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group
IBM SWG, Hursley, UK
smh at uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM
To: Tim Kimber/UK/IBM at IBMGB, "Mike Beckerle"
<mbeckerle.dfdl at gmail.com>
Cc: DFDL-WG <dfdl-wg at ogf.org>
Date: 10/12/2014 09:08
Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Erratum 2.100 (was Action 183 -
chicken-and-egg situation with lengths given by expressions)
Tim & Mike - replies in-line.
Concensus is heading towards 'explicit' working as per IBM DFDL today, so
we need to decide on the best way to express the 2.100 behaviour.
Regards
Steve Hanson
Architect, IBM DFDL
Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group
IBM SWG, Hursley, UK
smh at uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
From: Tim Kimber/UK/IBM at IBMGB
To: dfdl-wg at ogf.org
Date: 09/12/2014 23:25
Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Erratum 2.100 (was Action 183 -
chicken-and-egg situation with lengths given by expressions)
Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org
My 2 cents:
lengthKind 'explicit' should continue to work as it currently does in the
IBM implementation. That is, it should use the static or calculated value
of the length, and pad to that length when unparsing. Otherwise we have
different rules for lengthKind='explicit' depending on whether it is an
expression or a static value.
If somebody wants to avoid padding, then they can put an outputValueCalc
on the length field and calculate a value that requires no padding. I
think the required expression would be
{dfdl:valueLength(../variableLengthField)}
With these rules there is a potential for a mutual dependency ( deadlock )
when outputValueCalc is used with a calculated length. If the
outputValueCalc is
{dfdl:contentLength(../variableLengthField)}
then the entire representation length ( including the padding characters )
is being requested. This obviously cannot be satisfied until the padding
has been applied, but the padding cannot be applied until the length is
known...etc. I don't think this should affect the decision about
lengthKind though, for two reasons:
- it's already possible to create deadlocks using other calculated fields
in DFDL. Any robust implementation of a serializer must include deadlock
detection in the evaluation of DFDL expressions.
- it would not be difficult to detect the simple case statically and
report a schema definition error.
SMH: Corrected function names to match spec.
The only downside of this is that users who want to calculate the output
length for themselves have to jump through the non-obvious hoop of adding
outputValueCalc to the length field and selecting the correct
(non-deadlocking) DFDL function.
But for fields have representation='text' and lengthUnits='characters'
there is a simpler alternative: set the length expression to
{fn:length(.)}. Other cases will be derivable from the infoset value by a
simple calculation, so the outputValueCalc solution should only be
required for the hard cases.
SMH: Your fn:length(.) does not work unfortunately. The expression does
not give the desired length when parsing.
regards,
Tim Kimber
From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl at gmail.com>
To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM at IBMGB
Cc: DFDL-WG <dfdl-wg at ogf.org>
Date: 09/12/2014 18:06
Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Erratum 2.100 (was Action 183 -
chicken-and-egg situation with lengths given by expressions)
Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org
Idea 1:
Just provide an infoset member [contentLength] which would allow one to
get and (when unparsing) set the content length. This would provide the
"sticky" content length memory that people are seeking when they say they
want data to round-trip. If the same infoset object is parsed and then
unparsed, the existence of this [contentLength] member provides the memory
of the content length from the parse. An outputValueCalc could
meaningfully ask for dfdl:contentLength() which would return the value of
this member. If unset, then when unparsing the value of this member can be
defined to be the dfdl:valueLength() of the infoset value.
SMH; Not keen on this. It makes the DFDL infoset deviate too much from the
XML infoset.
Idea 2:
Per our discussion on the call, I think we are trying to get two behaviors
into the same length kind, and we can't have it both ways.
So I am fine if we say lengthKind 'explicit' evaluates the expression both
parsing and unparsing.
I would suggest new lengthKind 'explicitParseOnly' evaluates the
expression only when parsing. When this is used, an outputValueCalc would
be needed to compute the length value and unparse the representation of
it. That calculation would likely need to refer to the dfdl:valueLength()
of the element whose length needs to be stored.
SMH: Not keen on the name. Let's keep thinking!
Idea 3:
An alternative would be to introduce property dfdl:unparseContentLength
which is an integer constant, or an expression, or one of three special
enum values. When dfdl:unparseContentLength='useLength' then it would be
the same value as the length (same constant, or computed by evaluating the
same expression). Or if dfdl:unparseContentLength='useValueLength' would
mean that the length is equivalent to writing dfdl:unparseContentLength='{
dfdl:valueLength(., LU) }', where LU is the length units of the element
that is the first argument). Nothing would be automatically saving out the
explicitly computed length, so an outputValueCalc would need to be able to
get at the dfdl:valueLength or dfdl:contentLength - which would return the
value of the dfdl:unparseContentLength)
A thought: perhaps we really only need the enum values, and not the
ability to specify constants or expressions? In that case I'd suggest the
property have the "policy" suffix on the name, i.e.,
dfdl:unparseContentLengthPolicy.
Other possible name choices for this property:
dfdl:explicitLengthKindUnparsePolicy or
dfdl:lengthKindExplicitUnparsePolicy.
I guess we get our choice of whether we add new length kinds along with
'explicit' and we define lengthKind 'explicit' to be one of these
behaviors, or we add this enum policy property to add additional meaning
when the lengthKind is 'explicit'.
The difference of the two is taste and style I think.
SMH: I prefer a new enum for lengthKind. That's the point of the property.
It's much easier to say in the spec '...when dfdl:lengthKind is 'prefixed'
or 'expression'...' than '...when dfdl:lengthKind is 'prefixed', or
'explicit' and dfdl:length is an expression and dfdl:unparseContentLength
is 'xxx' ...'.
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 Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Steve Hanson <smh at uk.ibm.com> wrote:
This is the email thread that discussed the behaviour of lengthKind
'explicit' where length is an expression, when unparsing.
Erratum 2.100 had been raised and stated that this is an example of a
variable length, and behaves like lengthKind 'prefixed'. The discussion
below was around whether this captured all the use cases and should the
dfdl:length expression be evaluated during unparsing in order to obtain a
specified length to which the value could be padded (or truncated) in the
same way as a fixed length. The conclusion was that the expression should
not be evaluated. This is consistent with occursCount - the expression is
not evaluated on unparsing.
(There was a public comment on this area but it was just observing that
the spec had not been fully updated to reflect 2.100)
The use cases are numbered in the discussion below 1) to 4), with examples
. Updated to reflect function name changes.
The original proposal is also below, which was not adopted.
However, an issue is that IBM DFDL already implements use case 1) by
evaluating the expression on unparsing. I discovered this when I came to
change the code to ensure 2.100 behaviour was followed. It is therefore
likely that there are users who are relying on this behaviour in IBM DFDL.
Coincidentally the same day I was asked by a user about the following use
case. User has BCD data with length prefix. He wants to parse the data,
do some processing then unparse the data, but it is not acceptable for the
length of the data to change. Specifically, the BCD may start with 0s.
When this is parsed as a decimal or integer, it has the effect of losing
leading 0s so they need to be added back during unparsing. This is not
possible with lengthKind 'prefixed' and nor is it possible with lengthKind
'expression' with erratum 2.100. User is currently treating the element as
a 'prefixed' hexBinary blob to preserve the leading 0s. While this works
for his use case, I am worried that the blob solution won't always be
appropriate.
Regards
Steve Hanson
Architect, IBM DFDL
Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group
IBM SWG, Hursley, UK
smh at uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 08/12/2014 15:53 -----
From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM
To: dfdl-wg at ogf.org
Date: 08/01/2013 18:06
Subject: Fw: [DFDL-WG] Action 183 - chicken-and-egg situation with
lengths given by expressions
Did not adopt the proposal below, and errata 2.100 remains as documented.
Regards
Steve Hanson
Architect, Data Format Description Language (DFDL)
Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group
IBM SWG, Hursley, UK
smh at uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 08/01/2013 18:05 -----
From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM
To: dfdl-wg at ogf.org,
Date: 08/01/2013 14:44
Subject: Re: Fw: [DFDL-WG] Action 183 - chicken-and-egg situation
with lengths given by expressions
If we had the following we would have three behaviours which I think would
cover the identified use cases.
a) dfdl:lengthKind = "explicit", dfdl:length is an integer => length is
specified on parsing & unparsing
b) dfdl:lengthKind = "explicit", dfdl:length is an expression => length is
specified on parsing & unparsing (expression must evaluate)
- use cases 1) & 2) below
- Mike's scenario where length is specified externally
c) dfdl:lengthKind = "expression" (*new*), dfdl:length must be an
expression => length is specified on parsing, but variable on unparsing
(expression not evaluated)
- new enum
- use case 3) below
- gives the erratum 2.100 behaviour
- matches occursCountKind 'expression' behaviour
Alternatively we leave errata 2.100 as it is and for Mike's scenario the
application must do the padding before it passes the infoset values to the
unparser.
Regards
Steve Hanson
Architect, 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: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM
To: dfdl-wg at ogf.org,
Date: 11/12/2012 10:36
Subject: Fw: [DFDL-WG] Action 183 - chicken-and-egg situation with
lengths given by expressions
The email thread which provided the material for the discussion which led
to:
2.100. Section 12.3.1. State that when unparsing an element with
lengthKind ‘explicit’ and where length is an expression, then the data in
the Infoset is treated as variable length and not fixed length. The
behaviour is the same as lengthKind ‘prefixed’.
Regards
Steve Hanson
Architect, Data Format Description Language (DFDL)
Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group
IBM SWG, Hursley, UK
smh at uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 16/11/2012 16:04 -----
From: Tim Kimber/UK/IBM at IBMGB
To: dfdl-wg at ogf.org,
Date: 11/09/2012 12:39
Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Action 183 - chicken-and-egg situation with
lengths given by expressions
Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org
Good point. The problem is that lengthKind-'explicit' is being used for
two things:
a) a length that is static
b) a length that is calculated
...so the DFDL serializer must assume that the expression needs to be
evaluated.
For occursCountKind we have separate values for 'fixed' and 'expression'.
If we did not, then occursCountKind would have the same problem except
that it would affect defaulting rather than padding.
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: 11/09/2012 12:27
Subject: [DFDL-WG] Action 183 - chicken-and-egg situation with
lengths given by expressions
Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org
This mail is on the expected behaviour of the DFDL unparser when writing
out a 'data' element the length of which is held in an earlier 'len'
element.
There are several scenarios, some straightforward and some that exhibit a
chicken-and-egg behaviour. The principle of what happens is understood,
the action is to make sure that the behaviour is explained in enough
detail in the spec to enable implementations to be consistent. (Note - IBM
DFDL does not yet support outputVaueCalc so has not hit this yet).
Scenarios follow. The 'data' element shown is simple, but the same
principles apply if it is complex.
1) 'len' is set from infoset
- 'len' can be set in augmented infoset
- No issue as 'data's length expression may be evaluated
<xsd:element name="message1">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="len" type="xsd:int"
dfdl:lengthKind="explicit" dfdl:length="2" />
<xsd:element name="data" type="xsd:string"
dfdl:length="{/message1/len}"
dfdl:lengthKind="explicit" />
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
2) 'len' is set using outputValueCalc with fixed expression
- When 'len's outputValueCalc is encountered, it can be evaluated then and
there
- 'len' can be set in augmented infoset
- No issue as 'data's length expression may be evaluated
<xsd:element name="message1">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="len" type="xsd:int"
dfdl:outputValueCalc="{10}" dfdl:lengthKind="explicit"
dfdl:length="2" />
<xsd:element name="data" type="xsd:string"
dfdl:length="{/message1/len}"
dfdl:lengthKind="explicit" />
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
3) 'len' is set using outputValueCalc with reference 'data' (unpadded)
- When 'len's outputValueCalc is encountered, it can not yet be evaluated
as it depends on the length of 'data'
- 'len' can not yet be set in augmented infoset
- Problem as 'data's length expression can not be evaluated
- But we do know the unpadded length of 'data' so 'len's outputValueCalc
can now be evaluated
- In turn this means that 'data's length expression can now be evaluated
<xsd:element name="message1">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="len" type="xsd:int"
dfdl:outputValueCalc="{dfdl:valueLength(/message1/data)}"
dfdl:lengthKind="explicit" dfdl:length="2" />
<xsd:element name="data" type="xsd:string"
dfdl:length="{/message1/len}"
dfdl:lengthKind="explicit" />
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
4) 'len' is set using outputValueCalc with reference 'data' (padded)
- When 'len's outputValueCalc is encountered, it can not yet be evaluated
as it depends on the length of 'data'
- 'len' can not yet be set in augmented infoset
- Problem as 'data's length expression can not be evaluated
- We don't know the padded length of 'data' because we don't know 'len'
- Problem: 'data's length expression can never be evaluated
<xsd:element name="message1">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="len" type="xsd:int"
dfdl:outputValueCalc="{dfdl:contentLength(/message1/data)}"
dfdl:lengthKind="explicit" dfdl:length="2" />
<xsd:element name="data" type="xsd:string"
dfdl:length="{/message1/len}"
dfdl:lengthKind="explicit" />
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
Regards
Steve Hanson
Architect, 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: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM
To: dfdl-wg at ogf.org
Date: 04/09/2012 17:31
Subject: Fw: Behaviour for lengthKind 'endOfparent' is still not
fully specified
DFDL WG call 4th Sept 2012:
1) Agreed that for binary data, only xs:hexBinary and packed/BCD allowed
to have endOfParent
2) Agreed this is the correct behaviour when filling to a known length
3) Agreed this is the correct behaviour when filling to a known length
4) Agreed this is the correct behaviour when filling to a known length
It was noted that lengthKind 'explicit' on the parent may not result in a
known length if the length is an expression. This is an example of a more
general chicken-and-egg situation with lengths given by expressions, for
which outputValueCalc and DFDL functions unpaddedLength() were added can
be used. Action raised to ensure that the behaviour of an implementation
is fully defined by the spec.
Regards
Steve Hanson
Architect, Data Format Description Language (DFDL)
Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group
IBM SWG, Hursley, UK
smh at uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 04/09/2012 17:24 -----
From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM
To: dfdl-wg at ogf.org <dfdl-wg at ogf.org>
Date: 04/09/2012 14:08
Subject: Behaviour for lengthKind 'endOfparent' is still not fully
specified
Noted when I reviewed latest spec - endOfParent and unparsing is not fully
thought through.
The spec today says that I can use endOfParent with binary data. There is
a restriction in section 12.3.8, but it only applies when an element is
endOfParent and its parent is lengthKind delimited.
There are a couple of cases to consider:
1) Binary data of restricted length (see list in other email "proposed
clarification/narrowing - delimited binary data should decimal"). I don't
think it makes sense to allow these. We don't allow these binary reps for
delimited.
2) Text data of variable length when unparsing. Box scenario. If the data
in the infoset is shorter than the space in the box, what we do? I think
we should pad to box length with appropriate padChar, according to
justification, as that is effectively a 'specified length'. Error if
textPadKind is 'none'. Use parent's lengthUnits.
3) HexBinary data of variable length when unparsing. Box scenario. If the
data in the infoset is shorter than the space in the box, what we do? I
think we should right-pad to box length with fill byte, as that is
effectively a 'specified length'.
4) Packed/BCD binary data of variable length when unparsing. Box scenario.
If the data in the infoset is shorter than the space in the box, what we
do? I think we should pad to box length with zero bytes, according to
justification, as that is effectively a 'specified length'. (Must be zero
bytes and not fill byte as must be numeric in order to be parsed).
In relation to 2 - 4, note that lengthKind 'endOfParent' can only be used
with a parent lengthKind of 'explicit', 'pattern', 'prefixed' or
'endOfParent' or a choice with choiceLengthKind 'explicit', so the box
scenario when unparsing therefore occurs only when lengthKind is
'explicit' or choiceLengthKind is 'explicit' - these are the cases when
the length is known. Also note that when there are nested 'endOfParent'
elements (which is allowed) then all padding must be done on the simple
element (ie, the innermost element), to ensure that what is output can be
parsed.
Regards
Steve Hanson
Architect, 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
--
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
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
--
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
--
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
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/dfdl-wg/attachments/20150119/939366f6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gwdrp-dfdl-v1.0.4-action276.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1257578 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/dfdl-wg/attachments/20150119/939366f6/attachment-0001.obj>
More information about the dfdl-wg
mailing list