<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">OGF DFDL WG Call 2007-10-31</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Discussed</b>: Separator semantics
via rewriting - Alan Powell (prior to call) raised objections to MikeB's
treatment of separator properties semantics in draft of nulls/optionals/defaults
memo.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Mike agrees. This stuff is a mess. Needs
to be reworked.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Action item: Mike to rework.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Discussed</b>: Boxed data, i.e.,
sequences with dfdl:length specifications as means of specifying box size
surrounding dfdl-described content.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Proposed to drop this from DFDL V1.0.
</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Action: examine important formats to
see if this feature is needed. We know there are formats that use it (IMS
blocks), but must they be supported in single schemas or is a two-layer
via two schemas approach acceptable?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Resolved</b>: not dropping this.
New simpler examples are needed which make this clearer than the
example in the email/memo by Mike. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">(Note: this is the whole section on
valueCalc properties. This has already been identified as an area needing
a write up.)</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Discussed</b>: does infoset include
things like the representation length of items? This information is needed
to express output for formats where one element stores the rep-length of
another. Suman pointed out that this information doesn't need to be available
in the infoset. The relationships between elements of many kinds cannot
be expressed directly in terms of the infoset, so why require this representation-level
relationship to be so expressed?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Resolved</b>: infoset does not contain
represnetation artifacts like representation length. Mike mentioned that
it does contain number of occurrences for arrays. However, later discussion
of infoset brings into doubt whether the infoset even knows about arrays.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Discussed</b>: infoset </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Metadata link? Suman has advocated for
this. It's an optional thing. SCD paths are acceptable to most. Simon maintained
that this shouldn't be part of the infoset but really is an implementation
consideration.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">UML model: Discussed that it should
match XML infoset terminology and also the grammar terminology used in
the spec. (note: or the grammar terminology be made to conform to the infoset
- actually this is more likely) Simon's model has arrays as distinct from
sequence groups. We discussed eliminating arrays as a concept and going
to a neutral term that captures both sequence groups and arrays (things
with children). </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Action: Steve H. and Simon P. to work
out remaining infoset issues. Provide UML diagram. </font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Mike Beckerle<br>
STSM, Architect, Scalable Computing<br>
IBM Software Group<br>
Information Platform and Solutions<br>
Westborough, MA 01581<br>
direct: voice and FAX 508-599-7148<br>
assistant: Pam Riordan <br>
priordan@us.ibm.com
<br>
508-599-7046<br>
<br>
</font>