<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Note: the call is scheduled for 2 hours</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Agenda:</b></font><font size=3> </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">1. Go through actions.</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
2. Codepage for text items in infoset.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> It is proposed that text values
in the infoset should be ISO10646.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">3. Annotations on Top Level element</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">4 .Scoping of elements and Types</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">MB has pointed out a problem with the
current scoping rules and proposed that propoeties on an element should
override those on its type.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
5. Scoping rules for assert/discriminator and other annotations</font><font size=3>
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
6. Need for the equivalent of WTX Restart</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Restart indicates where in the schema
to restart parsing when unable to correctly parse content</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">7. Built-in Specifications</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Spec Section 23 </font><font size=2 face="Arial"><b>Built-in
Specifications</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial"><i>TBD: this section gives the names, import
URLs for, rep-property definition sets, property definitions, etc. for
the built-in named format definitions</i></font>
<p><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
8. AOB</font><font size=3> </font>
<br>
<br>
<p><font size=3 face="sans-serif"><b>Current Actions:</b></font><font size=3>
</font>
<table border width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=10%>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>No</b></font></div>
<td width=89%><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><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
06/05: No progress</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
13/05: Calendar has been added to latest spec version v034 but still a
few details to clarify.</font><font size=3> </font>
<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><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
06/05: No progress</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
06/05: No progress</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><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
06/05: SH is updating tables which will be ready for next call</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
13/05: SH emailed updated version. AP commented.. See minutes to issues.</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><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
06/05: No progress</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
13/05: No progress</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><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
06/05: MB will have update for next call</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
13/05: MB will have update for next call</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><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
06/05: DG indicates will have update next week</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
13/05: see minutes</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 <br>
06/05: Discussed suggestion of adding type indicator to discriminator.
MB to provide examples.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
15/03: Semantic documented in v034. MB to provide examples of need for
scope indicator on discriminator</font><font size=3> </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><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
06/05: No progress</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 opinion before closing</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
06/05: Discussed S Gao email and suggestions. Decided need to review all
XML UPA rules and decide which apply to dfdl.</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><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
06/05: MB has prepared response to OMG. Will send DFDL sepc v033</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><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
06/05: SKK will send update by Friday</font><font size=3> </font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>040</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">SH: LengthKind on complex objects. </font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
29/04: All send comment before next call</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
06/05: See minutes. Agreed to remove lengthKind from sequence and choice.
</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>041</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">AP: UnorderedInitiated</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
29/04: All: Review for next call</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
06/05: See minutes: Agreed to generalize to all sequences</font><font size=3>
</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>042</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">MB: Complete variable specification.</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
To include how properties such as encoding can be set externally. Must
be a known variable name.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
06/05: No progress</font><font size=3> </font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>043</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">13/05: Types in the infoset. Currently
infoset types have defined value space but that implies a parser would
have to validate input. Is this correct?</font><font size=3> </font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>044</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">13/05: Bidi</font></table>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><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<br>
<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>