[DFDL-WG] Action 282 (was Re: Fw: [DFDL]: First Release of DFDL4S Parser Library)
Steve Hanson
smh at uk.ibm.com
Mon Nov 2 15:17:14 EST 2015
<xs:simpleType name="redAndYellowAlertType">
<xs:union memberTypes="redAlertType yellowAlertType"/>
</xs:simpleType>
The above is a type that allows ranges 0-200 and 201-500.
Regards
Steve Hanson
Architect, IBM DFDL
Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group
IBM Integration Bus, Hursley, UK
smh at uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
mob:+44-7717-378890
From: Michele Zundo <michele.zundo at esa.int>
To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM at IBMGB
Cc: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl at gmail.com>, "dfdl-wg at ogf.org"
<dfdl-wg at ogf.org>, Maurizio De Bartolomei <mdebartolomei at eopp.esa.int>,
Montserrat Piñol <mpinol at eopp.esa.int>, Rui Mestre
<rui.mestre at deimos.com.pt>
Date: 02/11/2015 16:08
Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Action 282 (was Re: Fw: [DFDL]: First
Release of DFDL4S Parser Library)
Steve,
I believe I do not understand this.
can you make an example ?
Michele
On 02 Nov 2015, at 16:33 , Steve Hanson <smh at uk.ibm.com> wrote:
I was also going to add that DFDL supports xs:union on simple types,
enabling dfdl:checkConstraints to be used when there are multiple ranges.
· Unions; the memberTypes must be derived from the same simple
type. DFDL annotations are not permitted on union members.
The purpose of unions is to allow multiple constraints via facets such as
multiple independent range restrictions on numbers. This enhances the
ability to do rich validation of data.
Regards
Steve Hanson
Architect, IBM DFDL
Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group
IBM Integration Bus, Hursley, UK
smh at uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
mob:+44-7717-378890
From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl at gmail.com>
To: Michele Zundo <michele.zundo at esa.int>
Cc: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM at IBMGB, Rui Mestre <rui.mestre at deimos.com.pt
>, "dfdl-wg at ogf.org" <dfdl-wg at ogf.org>, Montserrat Piñol <
mpinol at eopp.esa.int>, Maurizio De Bartolomei <mdebartolomei at eopp.esa.int>
Date: 02/11/2015 14:33
Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Action 282 (was Re: Fw: [DFDL]: First
Release of DFDL4S Parser Library)
Michele,
I think the first thing I'd propose for the set membership test is for us
to add the XPath 2.0 intersect operator to DFDL. So your discriminator
becomes:
<dfdl:discriminatortest=
"{fn:exists(/Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID intersect
(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44,
48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,
64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76,
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92,
256,257,258,259,260,261,262,263,264,265,266,267,268,
272,273,274,275,276,277,278,279,280,281,282,283,284,
288,289,290,291,292,293,294,295,296,297,298,299,300,
304,305,306,307,308,309,310,311,312,313,314,315,316,
320,321,322,323,324,325,326,327,328,329,330,331,332,
336,337,338,339,340,341,342,343,344,345,346,347,348))}"/>
This is a small addition to DFDL, but completely in the spirit of sticking
with XPath 2.0 wherever possible.
...mike beckerle
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 Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Michele Zundo <michele.zundo at esa.int>
wrote:
Hi Steve,
your example below addresses the belonging to a range, how would then the
belonging to a set be checked ? Currently our usage looks like here:
<xs:complexTypename="TypePacketData">
<xs:sequence>
<xs:choice>
<xs:sequence> <!-- Choice for MSI -->
<xs:annotation>
<xs:appinfo source="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-1.0/">
<dfdl:discriminatortest=
"{/Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID in [ 0, 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44,
48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,
64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76,
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92,
256,257,258,259,260,261,262,263,264,265,266,267,268,
272,273,274,275,276,277,278,279,280,281,282,283,284,
288,289,290,291,292,293,294,295,296,297,298,299,300,
304,305,306,307,308,309,310,311,312,313,314,315,316,
320,321,322,323,324,325,326,327,328,329,330,331,332,
336,337,338,339,340,341,342,343,344,345,346,347,348]}"/>
</xs:appinfo>
</xs:annotation>
<xs:element name="MSI_Packet_Secondary_Header"type="TypePacketData_MSI"/>
<xs:element name="MSI_User_Data_Field"type="TypeUserData"/>
</xs:sequence>
<xs:sequence> <!-- Choice for TM_GPSR -->
<xs:annotation>
<xs:appinfo source="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-1.0/">
<dfdl:discriminatortest=
"{/Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID in
[769,771,772,774,775,777,779,780,781,785,787,788,790,791,793,795,796,797]}"
/>
</xs:appinfo>
</xs:annotation>
<xs:element name="TM_GPSR_Packet_Secondary_Header"type=
"TypePacketData_TMGPSR"/>
<xs:element name="TM_GPSR_User_Data_Field"type="TypeUserData"/>
</xs:sequence>
<xs:sequence>
<!-- Choice for TM_Time_packet(9,2), Overlaps with MSI APID 0x0 Removed
here (moved to 99999) as it is SCIENCE config-->
<xs:annotation>
<xs:appinfo source="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-1.0/">
<dfdl:discriminator
test="{/Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID in [99999]}" />
</xs:appinfo>
</xs:annotation>
<xs:element name="TM_Time_Packet_Secondary_Header"type=
"TypePacketData_TMT92"/>
<xs:element name="TM_Time_Packet_User_Data_Field"type="TypeUserData_TMT92"
/>
</xs:sequence>
<xs:sequence> <!-- Choice for TM_STR -->
<xs:annotation>
<xs:appinfo source="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-1.0/">
<dfdl:discriminatortest=
"{/Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID in
[596,598,612,614,628,630,660,662]}"/>
</xs:appinfo>
</xs:annotation>
<xs:element name="TM_STR_Packet_Secondary_Header"type=
"TypePacketData_TMSTR"/>
<xs:element name="TM_STR_User_Data_Field"type="TypeUserData"/>
</xs:sequence>
<xs:sequence> <!-- Choice for TM_CSW_AOCS -->
<xs:annotation>
<xs:appinfo source="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-1.0/">
<dfdl:discriminatortest=
"{/Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID in [150,182]}" />
</xs:appinfo>
</xs:annotation>
<xs:element name="TM_CSW_AOCS_Packet_Secondary_Header"type=
"TypePacketData_TMCSWAOCS"/>
<xs:element name="TM_CSW_AOCS_User_Data_Field"type="TypeUserData"/>
</xs:sequence>
<xs:sequence>
<!-- Choice for HKTM -->
<xs:annotation>
<xs:appinfo source="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-1.0/">
<dfdl:discriminator
test="{/Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID inrange [144,149]
or /Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID inrange [151,181]
or /Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID inrange [183,239]
or /Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID inrange [516,575]
or /Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID in
[592,593,594,595,597,613,629,656,657,658,659,661]
or /Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID inrange [599,611]
or /Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID inrange [615,627]
or /Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID inrange [631,639]
or /Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID inrange [663,671]
or /Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID in
[768,770,776,778,782,783,784,792,794,798,799]
or /Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID inrange [1280,1295]}"
/>
</xs:appinfo>
</xs:annotation>
<xs:element name="TM_HKTM_Packet_Secondary_Header"type=
"TypePacketData_HKTM"/>
<xs:element name="TM_HKTM_User_Data_Field"type="TypeUserData_HKTM"/>
</xs:sequence>
<xs:sequence>
<!-- Choice for TM_IDLE -->
<xs:annotation>
<xs:appinfo source="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-1.0/">
<dfdl:discriminator
test="{/Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID in [2047]}"
/>
</xs:appinfo>
</xs:annotation>
<xs:element name="TM_IDLE_Packet_Secondary_Header"type=
"TypePacketData_TMIDLE"
/>
</xs:sequence>
<xs:sequence> <!-- Choice for UNKNOWN -->
<xs:annotation>
<xs:appinfo source="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-1.0/">
<dfdl:discriminatortest="{true}"/>
</xs:appinfo>
</xs:annotation>
<xs:element name="UNKNOWN_User_Data_Field"type="TypePacketData_UNKNOWN"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:choice>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
On 27 Oct 2015, at 18:01 , Steve Hanson <smh at uk.ibm.com> wrote:
Just to clarify, dfdl:assert and dfdl:discriminator are identical when the
expression returns false, the difference between the two is when the
expression returns true and the parser is in a 'point of uncertainty' (eg
choice) - a discriminator returning true has a positive discrimination on
the point of uncertainty, an assert does not.
I suspect that most of the time you can achieve what you want with just
dfdl:checkConstraints() and simple type inheritance. Example below (syntax
simplified for clarity). But I am happy to be proved wrong, so if you
have an example ... ?
<xs:simpleType name="alertType">
<xs:restriction base="xs:unsignedInt>
<xs:minInclusive value="0"/>
<xs:maxInclusive value="999"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
<xs:simpleType name="redAlertType">
<xs:restriction base="alertType">
<xs:minInclusive value="0"/>
<xs:maxInclusive value="200"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
<xs:simpleType name="yellowAlertType">
<xs:restriction base="alertType">
<xs:minInclusive value="201"/>
<xs:maxInclusive value="500"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
...
<xs:choice>
<xs:element name="red">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="alert" type="redAlertType">
<dfdl:discriminator test="{dfdl:checkConstraints()}">
</xs:element>
...
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element name="yellow">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="alert" type="yellowAlertType">
<dfdl:discriminator test="{dfdl:checkConstraints()}">
</xs:element>
...
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element name="other">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="alert" type="alertType">
<dfdl:assert test="{dfdl:checkConstraints()}">
</xs:element>
...
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
Regards
Steve Hanson
Architect, IBM DFDL
Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group
IBM Integration Bus, Hursley, UK
smh at uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
mob:+44-7717-378890
From: Michele Zundo <michele.zundo at esa.int>
To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM at IBMGB
Cc: dfdl-wg at ogf.org, Maurizio De Bartolomei <
mdebartolomei at eopp.esa.int>, Montserrat Piñol <mpinol at eopp.esa.int>, Rui
Mestre <rui.mestre at deimos.com.pt>
Date: 27/10/2015 16:27
Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Action 282 (was Re: Fw: [DFDL]: First
Release of DFDL4S Parser Library)
Yes, exactly. This is one of the current use case, in addition we could
also use the value to
implement different type of checks e.g. some of the parameters we look at
have a type,
a range outside of which they are invalid and a set of other ranges that
correspond to various other conditions
(e.g. red alarm or yellow alarm).
Michele
On 27 Oct 2015, at 17:19 , Steve Hanson <smh at uk.ibm.com> wrote:
"Instead the checkvalue/checkrange (between 100 and 150 or 200 and 250)
would be used to do conditional checks in derived schemas outside the
scope of a dfdl:assert (to guide the parsing among several options, like
we do for the our S2G
TF schema version)."
That sounds like you would use this in a dfdl:discriminator ?
Yes, exactly. While this is one of the current use case, in addition we
would also use the value to
implement different type of checks e.g. some of the parameters we look at
have a type,
a range outside of which they are invalid and a set of other ranges that
correspond to various other conditions
(e.g. red alarm or yellow alarm).
Michele
Regards
Steve Hanson
Architect, IBM DFDL
Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group
IBM Integration Bus, Hursley, UK
smh at uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
mob:+44-7717-378890
From: Michele Zundo <michele.zundo at esa.int>
To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM at IBMGB
Cc: dfdl-wg at ogf.org, Maurizio De Bartolomei <
mdebartolomei at eopp.esa.int>, Montserrat Piñol <mpinol at eopp.esa.int>, Rui
Mestre <rui.mestre at deimos.com.pt>
Date: 27/10/2015 16:09
Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Action 282 (was Re: Fw: [DFDL]: First
Release of DFDL4S Parser Library)
Dear Steve,
to progress on this action:
1) it is our intention to “evolve” from our own dmx:assert to the
dfdl:assert in order to standardise as much as possible
with the official spec provided we find a solution for what below.
2) we had an iteration with our developers and came to the conclusion that
there is
need for both syntaxes: the existing (in the standard)
dfdl:checkConstraints()and the new
one you proposed i.e. dfdl:checkRangeand dfdl:checkValue
The main semantic difference between checkValue/checkRangeand
checkConstraints
is that in one case we we need to associate a range to a quantity in a
sort of static way
(i.e. the type “knowns” it has a range associated with it) while the
checkvalue/checkrange
is something that you can do also if a range is not defined (see below).
For example you could have a definition for a specification sheet of an
electrical device.
The XSD type (Volts) intrinsically defined with a range 0-1000 but wanted
to check in derived schemas if value is between 100 and 150 or 200 and 250
and this information
would be used in different way.
This could be used to check 0-1000 hard constraints to see if the the
network will support it
while range 100-150 and 200-250 would check compatibility with US or
European Voltages for commercial appliances.
Note that dfdl:assert applies a condition to the parsing so that if the
check fails the parsing is aborted with a severe error.
In the example above we would want to apply checkConstraint defined with a
range 0-1000 in a dfdl:assert (to stop the parsing due to incorrect
values) but not a checkvalue/checkrange.
Instead the checkvalue/checkrange (between 100 and 150 or 200 and 250)
would be used to do conditional checks in derived schemas outside the
scope of a dfdl:assert (to guide the parsing among several options, like
we do for the our S2G
TF schema version).
Michele
On 05 Oct 2015, at 16:23 , Steve Hanson <smh at uk.ibm.com> wrote:
Hi Michele
Any update from your discussion?
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: Michele Zundo <michele.zundo at esa.int>
To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM at IBMGB
Cc: dfdl-wg at ogf.org, Rui Mestre <rui.mestre at deimos.com.pt>,
Montserrat Piñol <mpinol at eopp.esa.int>, Maurizio De Bartolomei <
mdebartolomei at eopp.esa.int>
Date: 23/09/2015 16:44
Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Action 282 (was Re: Fw: [DFDL]: First
Release of DFDL4S Parser Library)
Dear Steve,
thanks for the suggestion (same from Mike) we need to discuss this
internally with the developers and look at few use cases
to see what would be the consequences/advantages/disadvantages.
Give us a little bit of time..
Michele
On 22 Sep 2015, at 19:12 , Steve Hanson <smh at uk.ibm.com> wrote:
Hi Michele
Thanks for your quick response. The WG discussed this on the call today.
In fact, we wondered if the same result could already be achieved using
dfdl:checkConstraints() and declaring the enums or range using XSD facets
on xs:simpleType restrictions.
Have you considered whether dfdl:checkConstraints() achieves what you
want?
Example:
<xs:simpleType name="myRange">
<xs:restriction base="xs:int>
<xs:minInclusive value="100"/>
<xs:maxInclusive value="200"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
<xs:element name="myValue" type="myRange">
<xs:annotation><xs:appinfo ...>
<dfdl:assert>dfdl:checkConstraints(.)</dfdl:assert>
</xs:appinfo></xs:annotation>
</xs:element>
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: Michele Zundo <michele.zundo at esa.int>
To: dfdl-wg at ogf.org
Cc: Rui Mestre <rui.mestre at deimos.com.pt>, Montserrat Piñol <
mpinol at eopp.esa.int>, Maurizio De Bartolomei <mdebartolomei at eopp.esa.int>
Date: 22/09/2015 17:21
Subject: [DFDL-WG] Action 282 (was Re: Fw: [DFDL]: First Release of
DFDL4S Parser Library)
Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org
Dear Steve,
nice to hear things are moving.
The syntax below seems both reasonable and readable to me which is a good
thing.
It addresses the belonging to decimal groups (integer only ??) I
understand. (xs:decimal)
1) It might be also useful (not in our application but in general) to see
if it makes sense also to define
for dfdl:checkValues belongings to set of “enum” like value
e.g. if we have a type for $val defined as (ON, OFF or STANDBY) or
(MARRIED, SINGLE, WIDOWER)
can we also define a syntax that the $node belongs to it ?
2) for dfdl:checkRange it might make sense also to allow float numbers
e.g. X between 3.1 to 9.5
Michele
PS I will forward this proposal to our DFDL4S developers (in copy) to get
their thinking.
From: "Steve Hanson" <smh at uk.ibm.com>
Subject: [DFDL-WG] Action 282 (was Re: Fw: [DFDL]: First Release of DFDL4S
Parser Library)
Date: 22 Sep 2015 16:50:13 CEST
To: DFDL-WG <dfdl-wg at ogf.org>
To kick start this action, here is a proposal ... builds on the precedent
provided by dfdl:checkConstraints($node).
dfdl:checkValues($node, $val1, $val2, ...)
Returns boolean true if the specified node value matches any of the values
provided by $val1 etc.
The type of $val1 etc must be compatible with the type of $node.
It is a schema definition error if the $node argument is a complex
element.
The number of value arguments is implementation-defined.
dfdl:checkRangeInclusive($node, $val1, $val2)
Returns boolean true if the specified node value is in the range given by
$val1 and $val2, inclusive.
The type of $val1 and $val2 must be compatible with the type of $node, and
must be a derivative of xs:decimal.
It is a schema definition error if the $node argument is a complex
element.
dfdl:checkRangeExclusive($node, $val1, $val2)
Returns boolean true if the specified node value is in the range given by
$val1 and $val2, exclusive.
The type of $val1 and $val2 must be compatible with the type of $node, and
must be a derivative of xs:decimal.
It is a schema definition error if the $node argument is a complex
element.
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: 11/08/2015 16:28
Subject: Fw: [DFDL]: First Release of DFDL4S Parser Library
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 11/08/2015 16:27 -----
From: Michele Zundo <michele.zundo at esa.int>
To: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl at gmail.com>
Cc: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM at IBMGB, Maurizio De Bartolomei <
Maurizio.De.Bartolomei at esa.int>, Montserrat Piñol <mpinol at eopp.esa.int>,
"Rui Mestre (DME)" <rui.mestre at deimos.com.pt>
Date: 18/05/2015 08:47
Subject: Re: [DFDL]: First Release of DFDL4S Parser Library
Thanks Mike,
we will add this to our list to be considered/noted.
However reading your explanation (NB I’m NOT at all an XPath expert) it
seemed you
had some good reason for avoiding longer than 1 path, so I would like to
avoid our DFDL4S
project results in an over-complication of the DFDL implementation/use of
Xpath
unless there are other reasons/users/rationale requiring this feature.
(btw the syntax is still weird-ish: “intersect” reminds me of Venn
Diagrams…)
As a project manager I always evaluate solutions and their cost vs the
benefit they bring,
and I believe the DFDL community should keep this is mind.
Michele
PS The syntax above anser to the question “belongs to” , would there be
any way to express ranges of values then ?
On 15 May 2015, at 16:24 , Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl at gmail.com> wrote:
Just a few comments on DFDL4S, and also thank you to Michele and team for
the presentation on Tuesday.
I think all the issues in the spreadsheet are fairly easily fixed in that
they are not major changes to DFDL4S, and would bring it into much closer
compliance with the DFDL spec.
The exception is the XPath limitations where DFDL4S has gone beyond what
XPath 2.0 allows and invented new syntax for expressing set membership
requirements.
So I took a look, and XPath 2.0 has a set intersect operator: ns1
intersect ns2 => ns3
This isn't in DFDL today, but might be usable to achieve the set
membership test; however, it requires use of XPath node sequences of
length greater than 1, which DFDL has avoided mostly. I say mostly as
there are XPath expressions that return node sequences of length greater
than 1 and those can be arguments to fn:count(...) for example.
So far in DFDL such node sequences cannot "leak out" of the XPath
expression into DFDL elements, and I think the usage in DFDL4S is similar
in that these node sequences would be needed only to check for set
membership, so the result is just a boolean as part of an
assert/discriminator.
We should examine whether XPath 2.0 set intersection is enough to meet the
need.
I believe the expressions would be something like:
fn:exists( . intersect (123, 456, 789, .... many more items....) )
- mike beckerle
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 Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Michele Zundo <michele.zundo at esa.int>
wrote:
for reference,
here a summary of the reported problem in an excel sheet.
This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee
or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in
whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete
it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the
sender.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-----------------------------------------
Michele Zundo
Head of Ground System Definition and Verification Office
EOP-PEP
European Space Agency, ESTEC
e-mail: michele.zundo at esa.int
-----------------------------------------
Michele Zundo
Head of Ground System Definition and Verification Office
EOP-PEP
European Space Agency, ESTEC
e-mail: michele.zundo at esa.int
This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee
or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in
whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete
it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the
sender.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
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
#### Sentinel2X-bandTMISPTypes.xsd moved to MyAttachments Repository V3.8
(Link) on 24 August 2015 by Steve Hanson.
--
dfdl-wg mailing list
dfdl-wg at ogf.org
https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg
-----------------------------------------
Michele Zundo
Head of Ground System Definition and Verification Office
EOP-PEP
European Space Agency, ESTEC
e-mail: michele.zundo at esa.int
This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee
or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in
whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete
it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the
sender.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
--
dfdl-wg mailing list
dfdl-wg at ogf.org
https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg
-----------------------------------------
Michele Zundo
Head of Ground System Definition and Verification Office
EOP-PEP
European Space Agency, ESTEC
e-mail: michele.zundo at esa.int
This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee
or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in
whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete
it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the
sender.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
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
-----------------------------------------
Michele Zundo
Head of Ground System Definition and Verification Office
EOP-PEP
European Space Agency, ESTEC
e-mail: michele.zundo at esa.int
This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee
or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in
whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete
it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the
sender.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-----------------------------------------
Michele Zundo
Head of Ground System Definition and Verification Office
EOP-PEP
European Space Agency, ESTEC
e-mail: michele.zundo at esa.int
This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee
or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in
whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete
it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the
sender.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-----------------------------------------
Michele Zundo
Head of Ground System Definition and Verification Office
EOP-PEP
European Space Agency, ESTEC
e-mail: michele.zundo at esa.int
This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee
or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in
whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete
it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the
sender.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
--
dfdl-wg mailing list
dfdl-wg at ogf.org
https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg
-----------------------------------------
Michele Zundo
Head of Ground System Definition and Verification Office
EOP-PEP
European Space Agency, ESTEC
e-mail: michele.zundo at esa.int
This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee
or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in
whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete
it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the
sender.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/dfdl-wg/attachments/20151102/6d6f98f6/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the dfdl-wg
mailing list