<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Dave</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Two intents of the infoset was that
it should be a) simple and b) easily related to the grammar in 11.3, so
whatever you come up with needs to take those requirements into account.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">"</font><font size=2 face="Tahoma">Parts
of XDM that have no relevance to DFDL but are also not conflicting should
probably be left in for conciseness and compatibility.</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif">"
- a) above would imply the opposite.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The XDM spec defines the rules for how
an XDM can be created from an XML Infoset or a PSVI. We can do a
similar exercise for DFDL Infoset, for those users who want to use XSL
for any post-DFDL transformation.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Regards<br>
<br>
Steve Hanson<br>
Programming Model Architect<br>
WebSphere Message Brokers<br>
Hursley, UK<br>
Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com<br>
Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Dave Glick <dglick@dracorp.com></b>
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">06/05/2009 13:55</font>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Alan Powell/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "dfdl-wg@ogf.org"
<dfdl-wg@ogf.org></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [DFDL-WG] Agenda for OGF WG call
6 May 2009</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Tahoma">All,</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Tahoma">My apologies, but I will be unable to make
the call again this week. I was hoping to have some suggestions regarding
the infoset/data model for discussion today, but it's not quite ready (I
still have a little more digging to do through the rest of the spec to
make sure what I'm suggesting can adequately capture all the representation
cases in DFDL). I'll try to get something out by the end of the day for
review and discussion on next week's call.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Tahoma">In general, it appears to me (and I'm admittedly
not as versed in the various XML standards as the other members of the
group) that we can bring the DFDL Infoset very closely in line with the
XDM. Specifically, I've been looking at the way XSLT 2.0 treats XDM as
it's data model. It states clearly that XDM is the model for XSLT with
certain explicit caveats and additions. This follows the XDM guidance of
how it should be used by other standards (specifically in XDM Section 7
and Appendix A). The task for DFDL therefore consists of two parts: what
parts of the XDM are in conflict with DFDL and should be explicitly excluded,
and what parts of DFDL have no corresponding support in XDM and should
be appended. Parts of XDM that have no relevance to DFDL but are also not
conflicting should probably be left in for conciseness and compatibility.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Tahoma">My biggest concern is over the use of two
different types of Element Information Items in the DFDL specification
as this seems so contrary to convention in XDM. My recommendations include
treating all element nodes similarly to XDM as complex and those element
nodes that actually only contain simple content should have a single child
of the XDM text node type or a new DFDL value node type (not sure the best
way to go here).</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Tahoma">In any case, I'll pass along a full recommendation
soon.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Tahoma">Dave</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br>
<hr><font size=2 face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org [dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org]
On Behalf Of Alan Powell [alan_powell@uk.ibm.com]<b><br>
Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 06, 2009 6:01 AM<b><br>
To:</b> dfdl-wg@ogf.org<b><br>
Subject:</b> [DFDL-WG] Agenda for OGF WG call 6 May 2009</font><font size=3><br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b><br>
<br>
Agenda:</b></font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
1. Go through actions.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
2. LengthKind on Sequences and choices.</font><font size=3> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
LengthKind on sequences and choices and their parent element has proved
confusing to new users of DFDL. It is proposed that lengthKind is removed
from groups and only allow it to be set on parent element. See email from
SH</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
3. Discuss UnorderedInitated email from SH</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
4. Infoset codepage and encoding</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
The spec does not say what codepage and encoding is used for string fields.</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
5. AOB</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Next version (034)</font><font size=3> <br>
<br>
</font><font size=3 face="sans-serif"><b><br>
Current Actions:</b></font><font size=3> </font>
<table border=4 width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=11%>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>No</b></font></div>
<td width=88%><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Action </b></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>012</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">AP/SH: Update decimalCalendarScheme</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
10/9: Not allocated yet</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
17/9: No update</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
24/9: Add calendar binary formats to actions</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
22/10: No progress</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
16/1: proposal distributed and discussed. Will be redistributed</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
21/1: add locale, <br>
04/02: changed from locale to specific properties</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
18/2: Need more investigation of ICU strict/lax behaviour.</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
08/04: Not discussed</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
22/04: AP to complete asap once the ICU strict/lax behaviour is understood.
<br>
29/04: No progress</font><font size=3> </font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>020</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">SH: Resolve </font><font size=2 face="Arial">packedDecimalSignCodes</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>
</b>behaviour depends on NumberCheckPolicy <br>
22/10: No progress</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
10/12: added how to decide to overpunch and sign position</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
11/02: proposal largely agreed. SH to make minor changes</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
18/02: AP to document unsigned type behaviour</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
25/02: no progress</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
08/04: Not discussed</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
22/04: SH to complete last remaining issue, which is the behaviour when
logical type is signed/unsigned and the physical type is unsigned/signed.</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
29/04: SH had identified a problem with definition values and types in
the infoset and will email proposal. DG to be asked to accelerate
action 032 to see if helps</font><font size=3> </font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>024</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="Arial"><No owner> String XML type</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
08/04: Not discussed</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
22/04: Need to allocate owner. Work is to describe the semantics of using
dfdl:representation="xml" to model a well-formed XML fragment
in an overall non-XML document described by a DFDL schema.</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
29/04: As no resource availbel to progress this action agreed to defer
from V1. Will close next week if no objections</font><font size=3> </font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>026</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="Arial">SH: Envelopes and Payloads</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
08/04: Not discussed</font><font size=2 face="Arial"> explicity, but recursive
use of DFDL is tied up with this</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
22/04: Two aspects. Firstly compositional - do sufficient mechanisms exist
to model an envelope with a payload that varies. Secondly markup syntax
- this might be defined in the envelope. <br>
The second of these is very much tied up with the variable markup action
028, so will be considered there. SH to verify the composition aspect.</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
29/04: SH and AP working on proposal. related to Action 028</font><font size=3>
</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>027</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="Arial">SH: Property precedence tables</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
08/04: Not discussed</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
22/04: Two things missing from the existing precedence trees. Firstly,
does not show alternates (eg, initiator v initiatorkind). Secondly, need
a tree per concrete DFDL object (eg, element). SH to update.</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
29/04: No progress</font><font size=3> </font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>028</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="Arial">SH: Variable markup </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
08/04: Discussed briefly at end of call, IBM to see whether there any use
cases that require recursive use of DFDL.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
15/04: Use case was distributed and will be discussed on next call.</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
22/04: The use case in question is EDI where the terminating markup for
the payload segments is defined in the ISA envelope segment. The markup
is modelled as an element of simple type where the allowable markup values
are defined as enums on the type. But we need to handle two cases - firstly
where the envelope is present, so the value used by the payload is taken
from the envelope. Secondly where only the payload is present. Here we
need a way of scanning for all the enum values, and adopting the one we
actually find, when parsing. And using a default when unparsing. SH to
explore use of a DFDL variable, where the variable has a default, but also
has a type that is the same as the markup element - that way we get to
use the enums without defining everything twice.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
29/04: SH and AP working on proposal.</font><font size=3> </font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>029</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="Arial">MB: valueCalc (output length calculation)</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
08/04: Not discussed</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
22/04: Action allocated to MB, this is to complete the work started at
the Hursley WG F2F meeting.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
29/04: No progress</font><font size=3> </font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>032</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="Arial">DG: Investigate compatibility between DFDL
infoset and XDM</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
08/04: No update</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
22/04: No update</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
29/04: No update</font><font size=3> </font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>033</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="Arial">AP/TK: Assert/Discriminator semantics. AP
to document. TK to check uses of discriminator besides choice.</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
08/04: In progress within IBM</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
22/04: Waiting for TK to return from leave to complete. <br>
29/04: TK has sent examples shown need for discriminators beyond choice.
Agreed. MB to respond to TK </font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>036</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="Arial">SH: Provide use case for floating component
in a sequence</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
08/04: Raised</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
15/04: Use case sent and discussed. SH to do further investigation</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
22/04: IBM feedback from WTX team is that alternate suggested ways of modelling
the EDI floating NTE segment have significant usability issues. The DFDL
principle is that for a problem that can be expressed as two-layered, then
two DFDL models are needed. The EDI NTE segment does not fall into
this though, as its use is on a per sequence basis. Ongoing. <br>
29/04: Agreed that need to be in V1. SH to make a proposal</font><font size=3>
</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>037</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">All: Approach for XML Schema 1.0 UPA
checks.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
22/04: Several non-XML models, when expressed in their most obvious DFDL
Schema form, would fail XML Schema 1.0 Unique Particle Attribution checks
that police model ambiguity. And even re-jigging the model sometimes
fails to fix this. Note this is equally applicable to XMl Schema 1.1 and
1.0. While the DFDL parser/unparser can happily resolve the ambiguities,
the issue is one of definition. If an XSD editor that implements UPA checks
is used to create DFDL Schema, then errors will be flagged. DFDL may have
to adopt the position that: <br>
a)DFDL parser/unparser will not implement some/all UPA checks (exact checks
tbd)</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
b) XML Schema editors that implement UPA checks will not be suitable for
all DFDL models</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
c) If DFDL annotations are removed, the resulting pure XSD will not always
be valid (ie, the equivalent XML is ambiguous and can't be modelled by
XML Schema 1.0)</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Ongoing in case another solution can be found.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
29/04: Will ask DG and S Gao for oppinion before closing</font><font size=3>
</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>038</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">MB: Submit response to OMG RFI for non-XML
standardization</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
22/04: First step is for MB to mail the OGF Data Area chair to say that
we want to submit</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
29/04: MB has been in contact with OMG and will sunbit dfdl.</font><font size=3>
</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>039</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">SKK: Approach for creating Schema-For-DFDL
xsds. <br>
22/04: Resolve issue around multiple declarations needed for DFDL properties,
perhaps using MB's meta approach</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
29/04: Don't like qualified attributes in long form. SKK to check there
are no code gen implications, eg EMF.</font></table>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Alan Powell<br>
<br>
MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley, Winchester, SO21 2JN, England<br>
Notes Id: Alan Powell/UK/IBM email: alan_powell@uk.ibm.com
<br>
Tel: +44 (0)1962 815073
Fax: +44 (0)1962 816898</font><font size=3><br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font><font size=3><br>
</font>
<p>
<hr>
<br><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><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3><br>
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font><tt><font size=2><br>
--<br>
dfdl-wg mailing list<br>
dfdl-wg@ogf.org<br>
</font></tt><a href="http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg" target=_blank><tt><font size=2 color=blue><u>http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg</u></font></tt></a><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font><font size=3><br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<p>
<hr><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><i><br>
</i></font>
<br><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><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font><font size=3><br>
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font><tt><font size=2>--<br>
dfdl-wg mailing list<br>
dfdl-wg@ogf.org<br>
http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg</font></tt>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 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>
<br>
</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>