<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Note: the call is scheduled for 1 hour</font><font size=3>
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b><br>
Agenda:</b></font><font size=3> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
1. Go through actions.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
2. Completing DFDL V1</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">3. AOB</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p><font size=3 face="sans-serif"><b>Current Actions:</b></font>
<table border width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=7%>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>No</b></font></div>
<td width=92%><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>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">10/9: Not allocated yet</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">17/9: No update</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/9: Add calendar binary formats to
actions</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">22/10: No progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">16/1: proposal distributed and discussed.
Will be redistributed</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">21/1: add locale, </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">04/02: changed from locale to specific
properties</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">18/2: Need more investigation of ICU
strict/lax behaviour.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">08/04: Not discussed</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">22/04: AP to complete asap once the
ICU strict/lax behaviour is understood. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/04: No progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: No progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">13/05: Calendar has been added to latest
spec version v034 but still a few details to clarify.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: No Progress</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>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">08/04: Not discussed</font><font size=2 face="Arial">
explicity, but recursive use of DFDL is tied up with this</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">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.
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">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>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">29/04: SH and AP working on proposal. related
to Action 028</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: No progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: No progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: No Progress</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>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">08/04: Not discussed</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">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>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/04: No progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: SH is updating tables which will
be ready for next call</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">13/05: SH emailed updated version. AP
commented.. See minutes for issues and property changes.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: Updated version circulated. Review
before next call and be ready for vote.</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>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">08/04: Discussed briefly at end of call,
IBM to see whether there any use cases that require recursive use of DFDL.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">15/04: Use case was distributed and
will be discussed on next call.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">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>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">29/04: SH and AP working on proposal.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: No progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">13/05: No progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: No Progress</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>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">08/04: Not discussed</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">22/04: Action allocated to MB, this
is to complete the work started at the Hursley WG F2F meeting.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/04: No progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: MB will have update for next
call</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">13/05: MB will have update for next
call</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: Some progress. will be circulated
this week</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>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">08/04: No update</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">22/04: No update</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/04: No update</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: DG indicates will have update
next week</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">13/05: see minutes</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: No Progress</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>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">08/04: In progress within IBM</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">22/04: Waiting for TK to return from
leave to complete. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/04: TK has sent examples shown need
for discriminators beyond choice. Agreed. MB to respond to TK </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: Discussed suggestion of adding
type indicator to discriminator. MB to provide examples.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">15/03: Semantic documented in v034.
MB to provide examples of need for scope indicator on discriminator</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: MB to provide examples of need
for scope indicator on discriminator (but lower priority than action 029)</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>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">08/04: Raised</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">15/04: Use case sent and discussed.
SH to do further investigation</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">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. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/04: Agreed that need to be in V1.
SH to make a proposal</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: No progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: SH has almost completed the proposal</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>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">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: </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">a)DFDL parser/unparser will not implement
some/all UPA checks (exact checks tbd)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">b) XML Schema editors that implement
UPA checks will not be suitable for all DFDL models</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">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>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Ongoing in case another solution can
be found.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/04: Will ask DG and S Gao for opinion
before closing</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: Discussed S Gao email and suggestions.
Decided need to review all XML UPA rules and decide which apply to dfdl.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: SH or SKK to investigate</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>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">22/04: First step is for MB to mail
the OGF Data Area chair to say that we want to submit</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/04: MB has been in contact with OMG
and will sunbit dfdl.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: MB has prepared response to OMG.
Will send DFDL sepc v033</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: Response has been sent to OMG
based on v034</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. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">22/04: Resolve issue around multiple
declarations needed for DFDL properties, perhaps using MB's meta approach</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/04: Don't like qualified attributes
in long form. SKK to check there are no code gen implications, eg EMF.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: SKK will send update by Friday</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: SKK and MB have produced Schema
for DFDL, XSD dfdl subset and examples.. Close</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>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">To include how properties such as encoding
can be set externally. Must be a known variable name.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: No progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: AP to make proposal</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>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: SH No progress</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>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: AP: will check what IBM products
support.</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>045</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: AP: Speculative parsing</font></table>
<p>
<br>
<table border width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=5%>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>No</b></font></div>
<td width=94%><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Action </b></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>045</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05 AP: Speculative Parsing</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>046</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05 AP: Document changes to simple
type scoping</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>047</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05 AP: Scoping for non-format annotations</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>048</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: AP investigate Restart</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>049</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05 AP Built-in specification description
and schemas</font></table>
<p>
<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>