<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Not seen an agenda, I think the following
are up for discussion:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- Go through last week's minutes</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- Discuss Geoff & Steves' property
precedence</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- Discuss Mike's UML for DFDL schema
subset</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">IBM comments:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 color=#800080 face="sans-serif"><b>UML for DFDL subset
of XSDL</b></font>
<p><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- Need cardinality adding (Steve)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- White v black diamond not correct
(Suman)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- What does 'ref' mean on the link from
Particle to Element Declaration ? (Steve)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- Link from Complex Type Definition
to Particle - this can only be to a Model Group subclass (Steve)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- May want to add the following pointer
to make it complete: complex type definition -> (base type) -> complex
type definition (Sandy)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- I know this is probably not needed
by DFDL; but may help to include it for completeness. We have it for simple
types; may confuse people if it's not on compelx types. (Sandy)</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 color=#800080 face="sans-serif"><b>UML for DFDL annotations
on XSDL</b></font>
<p><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- Wondering whether this is necessary.
It's a middle step, possibly only useful to implementors (Sandy)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- 1st bullet - talks about a limitation
in the XSDL model - I'd like Sandy to take us through this. MRM carries
annotations on groups and group refs.(Steve)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- 1st bullet - the practical limitation
appears to be that you can't override the properties of a global group
on a group reference, like you can with elements. Is this going to be an
issue? (Steve)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- 4th bullet - prohibiting dfdl:discriminator
on xs:choice seems sensible (Steve)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- Should "variable definition"
be derived from "DFDL annotation base"? (Sandy)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- The current diagram suggests that
"variable definition" can both be part of a format base or as
a standalone annotation (outside of a format). Is this true? (Sandy)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- Can "hidden" be viewed as
a specialized element reference? (Sandy)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- This only implies a "base class"
pointer from "hidden" to "element reference". There
really isn't much benifit in doing this. It just *feels* better. Don't
feel strongly. (Sandy)</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>UML for post-scope resolution and
inheritance flattening</b></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- Haven't finished reviewing it carefully.
(Sandy)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- Inheritance is used much more often
in this diagram. e.g. "Any Element Wildcard" is derived from
both "Occurrence Properties" and "DFDL properties Base".
Is this intentional? Feels counter-intuitive to me. Components should *have*
properties, rather than *be* properties. (Sandy)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- Wondering whether it makes sense to
combine diagrams 2 and 3. That is, a single diagram that has everything
inherited/flattered, but don't attempt to remove properties that are not
used at runtime. e.g. keep DFDL Schema etc. (Sandy)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Regards, Steve<br>
<br>
Steve Hanson<br>
WebSphere Message Brokers<br>
Hursley, UK<br>
Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com<br>
Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848</font><font size=3 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<br><font size=3 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<hr><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<i><br>
</i></font>
<p><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><i>Unless stated otherwise above:<br>
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. <br>
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU</i></font>
<p><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>